Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Simpson (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep , withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Simpson[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's been 12 years since the last AfD for this article, but I think it's still shy of meeting WP:GNG or other guidelines. All coverage in reliable sources appears to be quite trivial; I can find almost no biographical information about the subject in reliable sources beyond their involvement in a few projects of minor notability. The most significant coverage that I've seen between the sources provided and an internet search is this. Additionally, it may be worth noting that some of the article's claims about Tacocopter, one of Simpson's more notable projects, appears to be misleading based on this Wired article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Seems no better than the last time it was created, clear delete then and still is. Does not meet WP:GNG. W C M_email 08:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment struck due to significant improvement in the article and sourcing since I commented. W C M_email 15:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While tacocopter was indeed just a concept that generated high press hype, the subject's arrest at the train station was a fairly prominent and real news event of the day, indicative of post 9/11 moods. Bradtem (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Wired article referenced above has undisclosed NPV issues. The Chief Editor of Wired at the time, Chris Anderson, was in the process of raising money for his own drone startup, 3DR. The article has other technical inaccuracies, such as referring to Simpson's electronic art as a "hoax explosive device" and referencing Dustin Boyer as a co-founder, despite him having no official association with the project (beyond what he claims). Taking other articles on TacoCopter into account suggests that while it wasn't structured in a way to grow to a functioning company, because of regulatory issues, it did perform a technical demonstration of the underlying concept with real hardware. Cjhandmer (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simpson's former delete page makes several strong points for conditional keep, in the event that Simpson achieved attention for more than the arrest at Boston Logan. Since then Simpson has fairly routinely achieved coverage in national and international news sources in areas related to UAVs, electronic art, and the maker movement. Simpson is one of the most prominent hardware-oriented makers of her generation, and certainly among women of color. I concede that better sourcing is needed for biographical detail and am in the process of improving the article in this regard. Cjhandmer (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went into this conversation thinking that I might vote to delete, but I did some more searching for sources about Simpson before making a decision. Beyond the Boston Logan arrest, I found numerous articles in the New York Times, Forbes, The Verge, and Vanity Fair that covered Simpson's life and work. The story that convinced me to vote to keep this article was learning about Star's role as the central source in a 2018 New York Times investigation that motivated over 20,000 Google employees worldwide to walk out in protest of the company's handling of sexual harassment claims. This story led to the resignation of multiple Google executives in 2018. I have updated the article to include those sources. Given Simpson's status as an internationally-recognized whistleblower, I vote that the article should remain. Rubberpaw (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Internationally recognized whistleblower: ✓, One of the most prominent women of color in the hardware maker community: ✓, and of course, arrested during a post 9/11 bomb scare that also created international headlines: ✓. Though the article could be cut down and edited. 73.92.231.99 (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I've been swayed by arguments and would be happy to withdraw the AfD, but as ~~Bradtem~~ WCM also voted delete, they need to agree as well. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did not vote delete, I left a comment moderately in favour. Where do you get I voted delete? While tacocopter was a concept rather than real service, it was a notable concept. Bradtem (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bradtem, sorry, I copied the wrong name, I meant to ping User:Wee Curry Monster _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV and subsequently WP:BIO. A solid keep. I see it has been Afd withdrawn. The consensus is for a keep. I will close this. scope_creep^Talk 13:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.