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 delete. Once again we have an AFD on this person plagued by sockpuppetry. People, this does not help your case, it does just the opposite in fact, any half-decent argument you may have presented is likely to be discarded out of hand. Schmidt has made a valiant attempt to save this article, but in the end his efforts have not been enough; there have been no convincing sources meeting GNG nor enough citations of her work by others to support a pass based on WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR.
Like the previous AFD, it was again asserted that Wikipedia is based only on sources findable online. To make this perfectly clear; print sources are completely acceptable, even preferred, as far as article verifiability is concerned. A hyperlink is not required, but enough information must be provided for other editors to be able to find that source themselves. SpinningSpark 12:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Delibero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

None of these sources meet notability. This article relies on self-published stories and mere mentions. I've already removed four sources about Thomas Dolby that the article creator included because they included a short quote from her, and I've removed a faculty listing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI. An older article on this person was already deleted. Her name is rendered a little differently here, which may be why the older article was not found. Agricola44 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like very little has changed since the previous AfD – delete for same reasons I stated there. Agricola44 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Is this speedy deletable as a re-creation, then? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the previous AfD. I don't think there's anything sufficiently different here to change the outcome. But the article is different, perhaps enough to save it from a G4 speedy; it has more focus on her academic career relative to her critical writing in mainstream publications. Per my opinion in the previous AfD, that change in focus makes the article more worthy of deletion, not less. Also the line about the expansion of the Center for Film and Media Studies is new. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Since someone came to my talk page to try to argue that my opinion here is wrong, let me elaborate. In the previous AfD, I didn't think the subject passed WP:PROF, the new article presents no new evidence of passing WP:PROF, and my opinion there has not changed. As I wrote in the previous AfD, there's a better chance that, as a published critic, the subject passes WP:GNG for her non-academic works. However, for that, we need multiple reliably published sources that are independent of the subject and that cover her (or her works) in depth. In the current version of the article, references 1, 2, 6, and 7 are from her employer (independent enough to be used as references within the article but not sufficiently independent to show notability via GNG). References 3 and 4 are trivial listings of things she contributed to, and reference 5 is one of her publications; again, not independent. So instead of the multiple GNG sources that we need, we have zero. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That was me and I responded HERE. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! The subject has recruited an international figure to teach in her program; the hire has made news around the world. The previous editor was wrong (as I said in the talk page): TD has credited Delibero with convincing him to come to JHU.

"Dolby says he knew nothing of Johns Hopkins outside of its reputation as a medical center. He saw an ad for someone to teach the ‘Sound for Picture’ course and wrote a letter to the department chair. “I felt I wasn’t really qualified to do it and she felt that I was hugely overqualified,” he recalls of his conversation with Linda DeLibero. “I wasn’t really a specialist in sound for picture, I’ve done a film score and couple TV scores so I know my way around it, but it’s not what I’ve specialized in. But she said ‘your practical experience would be a very good compliment’ and felt that it is the direction the university is trying to go to give the students the tools and skills to hit the ground running with a well-paying job rather than making tea for a production company.” He was intrigued, but was even more interested when he was told about the collaborations with MICA—which is partnering with Hopkins for the new Film Studies Program in the Centre Theater, which will house offices, classrooms, and screening rooms—and with the Maryland Film Festival, which will operate out of the Parkway, which will host a three-screen, 600-seat theater. - See more at: http://www.citypaper.com/arts/artsandentertainment/bcp-blinded-with-science-hopkins-brings-in-thomas-dolby-to-do-a-neighborhood-and-evangelize-for-its-trou-20141104,0,6744251.story#sthash.OHnXdbDM.dpuf signed~

• There is absolutely no WP guideline that specifies notability of an individual for hiring someone else who is notable! The previous AfD was filled with lots of absurd pleading & assertion, but this one tops those. Agricola44 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep per meeting WP:BIO through WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG, and her field expertise is reflected by WP:USEBYOTHERS. This latest version is better sourced that that which was narrowly deleted six months ago. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever sources you are using to make that determination, please add them, cause I don't see them. If I have to use my browser's "find" button to determine a short article's relevance, it has no business as a source. I mean, Christ, this article is trying to claim notability by naming people actually notable as her co-workers. As far as the sources that have short quotes or her opinions on film, that isn't notability, that is simply something that all film critics do. Merely a part of the job, for any film critic. Being interviewed in a couple local papers doesn't make her Roger Ebert. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I responded HERE. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. We do not oversubscribe impact based on trivial mentions nor notability based on who one works with or hires. The previous AfD analyzed her academic credentials quite thoroughly and found them wanting. Indeed, the closer commented "Despite impassioned opinions to keep this page the policy-based arguments are firmly in favor of deletion", which I don't think is the "narrow" that Schmidt would have us believe. I don't see that anything obvious has changed. Could advocates point out what they feel has changed? Always willing to switch positions if warranted. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• WP:BLP requires verifiability and does not care is such is minor. See THIS. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BIO. She is very well known in Baltimore and DC. It is unfortunate that the person who builds the program who attracts stars does not get credited as much as the stars but this program is Delibero's and she lectures prominently around the area. I have added another important book review. I see an editor has taken off notice of her regular public appearances.--Jpeeps (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahhhh... so we have her meeting WP:AUTHOR as well. Nice. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• AND with such as WP:NACADEMICS, we do not need the SIGCOV of a pop star. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The source you added is a book review that is BY Delibero. It is not ABOUT Delibero. As such it adds nothing of value to this discussion, and is also completely irrelevant for whether she passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry David, but I see Delibero and her writings are written of and/or quoted in enough other works [1] to convince me that she meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:NACADEMICS.[2][3][4][5][6][7] etal. You need not agree, but were she non-notable, no one would be quoting her.. and per community standards and while wonderful when written about pop stars, SIGCOV is not the only means by which we measure notability. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael, you do realize that more than half of the books you listed mention her in the acknowledgements, right? That means the book isn't about her, she merely knows people. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it does not mean that "she knows people", it does mean however that people know her, and respect her work and expertise. It's not who she knows, but rather a matter of who knows her.. which is a different measure of notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WRT the many supposed references that MichaelQSchmidt just listed, all of these seem to be either short quotes, trivial mentions, or acknowledgements (e.g. "my dear old friend Linda DeLibero") rather than substantive sources for the purpose of fulfilling WP:GNG (e.g. a full article in an archival publication about DeLibero). For perspective, I'll note that a citation to someone's work, for example in a journal, carries more impact than something like an acknowledgement, but even then we still require hundreds of those to demonstrate notability. Agricola44 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• And the other half do more than just "acknowledge" this respected expert. What you fail to acknowledge in your arguments, and what is found elsewhere in by our community standards, is that WP:GNG is not the sole means by which notability may be determmined... it is the simplest way, but not the only way. WP:NACADEMICS is met. WP:AUTHOR is met. Thus WP:BIO is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please have an honest look at my analysis of WP:NACADEMICS in the previous AfD, which carefully examines all the criteria in this guideline. She did not pass any of them at that time, and in looking at these same sources now, her title (position) at JHU, etc., it is evident that nothing has changed substantially since that AfD. Sorry, but she does not pass WP:NACADEMICS. Agricola44 (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• You fail to convince, thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahhhh... so we have Jpeeps arguing notability on the basis of local WP:FAME. The subjectivity here is starting to take on the same flavor as it did in the previous AfD. Agricola44 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• His arguments is more than just the essay WP:FAME, so best not to denigrate him by a concentration on that weaker portion. We can look to all arguments made toward keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, by admitting that my argument concentrates on Jpeep's position, however weak it may be, you're tacitly admitting your error in accusing me of WP:ADHOM. "Keep" does not emerge from a collective of weak, unconvincing assertions, but rather from satisfying any of the many WP guidelines on notability. So far, the arguments here are pretty similar to the those in the last AfD, which found the evidence wanting. Agricola44 (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• That previous AFD resulted in a deletion by only a very narrow margin. And um... most would think choosing to belittle another editor is indeed ADHOM. I am not saying you could not continue to do so, but am only pointing out that doing so is one of the "arguments to avoid" as listed in that essay. Thank you. And publishing for 30 years and her works being quoted and referred to in multiple other publications tends to strengthen WP:AUTHOR. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry to point this out, but you do not seem to be able to distinguish between belittling an editor and criticizing her argument. I've weighed-in with a number of comments here and all focus on policy. Would be nice if we could keep the debate on point instead of trying to obfuscate by resorting to unjustified accusations of ADHOM. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Note Some discussion about this is on my talk page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With the possible exception of a brief bio in the theater panel discussion source, none of the references in the article seem to be independent of the subject. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting that the many independent reliable sources confirming this BLP were removed by someone who wants the article deleted. Check earlier versions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have no experience in these things but I am interjecting here that most of Linda Delibero's public work does not appear on the web. For a decade she has been a regular speaker at Cinema Sundays series in Baltimore but this fact is only obliquely mentioned in the web. She writes for playbills -- I found one and uploaded it -- but these things again do not seem to be findable on the web. She lectures regularly at the AFI in DC but again, these things are not findable on the web. Yet the number of people who quote her work (on Twiggy for example) shows that she has a clear impact. So I'm sure I'm getting all of this wrong but it seems to me that your deletion of her is based on fundability on the internet when much work does not find a footprint here, just a trace. --128.90.90.251 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that those sources indicate notability. Any professor will do a lot of lectures, and I doubt that writing playbills makes someone notable, and being quoted means almost nothing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(chuckle) More than just playbills... check under her maiden name. She has not quite as many film reviews as on-academic Roger Ebert, but her opinions have some merit. And yes, a lecture is not notable, UNLESS those lectures catch the attention of national media. Agree or not, but according to our community standards, being quoted by others does mean more than "almost nothing". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Twiggy argument" was already advanced and refuted in the previous AfD. This paper, written in 1994 (i.e. now 20 years old) has been cited only 8 times, according to GS, which amounts to 1 citation roughly every 2.5 years. I doubt there's any convincing argument that this paper is somehow above average. Agricola44 (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable source listed says anything about the subject of the article. It's all stuff by the subject of the article, or brief mentions. Not notable. I checked the "deleted references" referred to above, and they're mostly about her finding an academic home for some has-been musician. John Nagle (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, guideline allows that the subject can speak about herself and background filled in through WP:ABOUTSELF without creating notability... THAT is found through verifibly meeting some of the SNGs, as the GNG is not the only means by which we may determine notability. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the closing admin will be grateful if we can get down to brass tacks. You've said now several times that GNG is not the only notability bar. Would you kindly specify exactly which notability guideline you believe Dr. DeLibero satisfies? Agricola44 (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, and again... To the closer: She is notable through meeting WP:CREATIVE (point 1) by the verifiability of she being so often referred to in other works to show "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors," and WP:NACADEMIC through that same verifiability of her work being cited by peers, and that citing-by-others showing she's affected a number of academic institutions, and her reviews and opinions and lectures show "impact outside academia in their academic capacity," and ther is an instruction that those in academia are notable if they meet WP:CREATIVE.
• And Agricola44... yes, the GNG is the easiest (and sometimes laziest) means by which we determine notability, but it is not the only way (read the hat-note above any guideline). Insisting that only it matters would be reason to mount RFCs to delete every SNG, and with respects I do not see that happening. However, please ping me if you mount them. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That argument is a loser. First, you're claiming that acknowledgements like "my dear old friend Linda DeLibero" are substantive citations. By the convention of many hundreds of academics' AfDs, they're not. Second, even if we allowed such acknowledgements to count as citations, this same corpus of academics' AfDs established that, for the purposes of specialist guidelines like WP:PROF, "widely cited" means hundreds of citations. Indeed, this convention is what has led to widely-used rules-of-thumb, for example minimum h-index of 15 (i.e. at least 15 papers each having at least 15 citations, making a total of 225 citations). The problem with DeLibero is the same as in the first AfD of this article – she very conspicuously does not meet the "case law" standards that have been established for specialist guidelines like WP:PROF. I agree with you that WP:GNG is easier and I'm surprised you haven't concentrated on that, since she arguably would present a stronger case there. Cheers. Agricola44 (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've cleaned it up a bit and stuck an extra ref in. The combination of her academic and media (okay, it's local media) career make her an interesting blp. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also searched Highbeam and Newspapers.com for anything that would establish WP:GNG. As pointed out above, the only other criterion left is WP:PROF#7. If it could be established that she is a professor, there is a case for #7. However, she appears to have a non-academic director appointment, which is a common non-academic appointment in American universities. If it could be clearly sourced that she has an academic appointment, I might reconsider. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as CSD:G4. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too many keep votes for G4 to be valid at this point. And the article is now too different from the original. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2014 (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.