Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chesa Boudin (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 keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chesa Boudin[edit]

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

Article deleted at AfD previously, then recreated. Still a non-notable child of famous parents. Not notable as a lawyer, a lecturer, or an author of "uninspired" books. The books got some ordinary reviews, I suppose, but most books do and it doesn't mean that all people who write books are notable. Plus, the discussion of his mediocre books seems a little WP:UNDUE, almost like an underhanded attack. We should enforce prior AfD consensus, and WP:BLP. -- Y not? 15:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A much earlier version was deleted atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chesa Boudin in 2007 in a discussion where I did not participate. I declined a speedy as re-creation, as the earlier discussion obviously did not consider the 2009 book or its book reviews. and suggested it would need another AfD for deletion. I need to consider my opinion about the merits of the present article. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews. Reviews in the NY Times,[1] Washington Post,[2] SF Gate,[3] World Affairs journal.[4]. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the clear pass of WP:AUTHOR #3 demonstrated by Green Cardamom. The linked reviews may be all for one book, but they're in such major newspapers that I think we can overlook WP:BIO1E. (Btw, "SF Gate" is actually the San Francisco Chronicle). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, colleagues, I just feel like it's a vicious cycle of media coverage. The books were reviewed because of who the author's parents are. The books themselves wouldn't have been reviewed otherwise. It all smells of BLP to me. -- Y not? 13:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not for us to judge whether she deserves to be notable, but only whether she is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - He :) -- Y not? 17:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oops, my apologies to the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Green Cardamom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2013 (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.