Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandi Bachom

:{{la|Sandi Bachom}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandi_Bachom Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Sandi Bachom}})

Fails GNG: No independent, reliable sources offer significant coverage. —swpb^T 13:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: As I noted on September 4, at the article talk, Article needs a ton of work, but a cursory search brought up these sources:
• http://citylimits.org/2014/12/22/neighborhood-sees-growing-problem-of-senior-citizen-evictions/
• http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/05/18/the-wall-2
• http://www.nywift.org/memberSearchResults.aspx?by=ln&ndx=B
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/getreel-306
• http://www.melbrooks.com/2014/06/09/steve-frankfurt-shares-rare-mel-brooks-story/
• http://nypost.com/2014/11/30/graphic-carriage-protest-leaves-child-in-tears/
• http://secure.traversecityfilmfest.org/WebSales/pages/Info.aspx?epguid=743ab825-b205-4aff-afed-dafad039b2ef&evtInfo=39608~4d61cd53-466a-4a38-9b0c-5dd9c77930d9
• http://greenwichvillagemusicfestival.ning.com/profiles/blogs/harold-lepidus-of-the-bob
• https://www.amazon.com/Denial-River-Egypt-Sandi-Bachom/dp/1568381883

I believe this is adequate to meet GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 21:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• As usual, the dump of links provided by Montana are not sufficient to meet GNG, most of them blatantly so, as she knows extremely well. As it stands now, no valid case for GNG has been presented:
• http://citylimits.org/2014/12/22/neighborhood-sees-growing-problem-of-senior-citizen-evictions/ No coverage at all of why this person is notable; she is only presented as a "man-on-the-street" witness to the actual subject of the article.
• http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/05/18/the-wall-2Completely trivial mention.
• http://www.nywift.org/memberSearchResults.aspx?by=ln&ndx=BNo evidence of significant coverage, and dubious independence.
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/getreel-306Not independent.
• http://www.melbrooks.com/2014/06/09/steve-frankfurt-shares-rare-mel-brooks-story/ The only thing in this dump close to an RS with borderline-significant coverage, if authorship can be shown to be reliable and independent.
• http://nypost.com/2014/11/30/graphic-carriage-protest-leaves-child-in-tears/More "man-on-the-street" coverage, with no mention of her career.
• http://secure.traversecityfilmfest.org/WebSales/pages/Info.aspx?epguid=743ab825-b205-4aff-afed-dafad039b2ef&evtInfo=39608~4d61cd53-466a-4a38-9b0c-5dd9c77930d9Not independent, and not significant coverage.
• http://greenwichvillagemusicfestival.ning.com/profiles/blogs/harold-lepidus-of-the-bobNot independent.
• https://www.amazon.com/Denial-River-Egypt-Sandi-Bachom/dp/1568381883Amazon counts for absolutely nothing, as we all know.

—swpb^T 12:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete per nom, and per that 100% terrible list of sources - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Please remember to focus on content, not individuals. A comment such as "as she knows extremely well" is an inappropriate attribution of motive and implies bad faith To the point, we have a situation where a person has some notability as a filmmaker, and some notability for her news coverage as a once-famous person who is a victim of eviction. I disagree with the source assessment, as they need to be viewed in total combination. The sources also are all third-party and independent of the subject (she owns none or them, works for none of them). The question of how "significant" the coverage is can be debated to some extent, but the New Yorker is most definitely significant, and, again, when you look at brief mentions in one source combined with longer discussions in others, in total, this meets WP:BASIC to me. Montanabw^(talk) 19:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• No, a lot of bad sources are a lot of bad sources - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Ok, since you want to keep digging your hole, let's delve into exactly how each of those non-independent sources is clearly non-independent:
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/getreel-306 This is the subject's bio and biblio on HuffPo, a publication the subject writes for.
• http://secure.traversecityfilmfest.org/WebSales/pages/Info.aspx?epguid=743ab825-b205-4aff-afed-dafad039b2ef&evtInfo=39608~4d61cd53-466a-4a38-9b0c-5dd9c77930d9 Even if this were not trivial coverage, it's a promotion by a film festival that included the subject's work
• http://greenwichvillagemusicfestival.ning.com/profiles/blogs/harold-lepidus-of-the-bob "Posted by Sandi", need I say more?

:::You certainly should know extremely this all well by now; or be embarrassed to admit that you don't. There are exactly two possibilities: you still don't understand what independence means (which, at this point, can only be called incompetence), or you don't care (distruption). Either will end your AfD career just as effectively. —swpb^T 20:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

:::::Once again with the threats. Stop. It would be wise for you to focus on content. There are additional possibilities: 3) You disagree with my analysis. You certainly have the right to do so. It is reasonable for you to suggest that some source material may go toward verifiability more than notability, I equally have the right to state my case. Just because we disagree does not mean we have to be disagreeable. That said, your point on two of the three sources you just listed is a reasonable one, I disagree with you on the traversecity source. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

::::::I will not stop calling you out when you come to my AfDs with falsehoods, ever, and I will keep telling you exactly where it will lead. This isn't a "disagreement", this is one editor continually presenting false facts. —swpb^T 20:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{u|swpb}}, you are engaging in personal attacks. I am not presenting "false facts," I am presenting what sources I could fund, and offering my interpretation of the guidelines. You need to stop making threats. The community will decide this case and you need to look at phrases like "my AfDs" You don't WP:OWN these nominations, and I weigh in ay many other AfDs besides yours, particularly where they involve biographies of women, as here. (I even !vote delete about 1/3 of the time, last I checked.) Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

:::::::{{u|Montanabw}} the facts really aren't on your side here. These were trivially obviously terrible sources, and you are a sufficiently experienced editor that anyone working with you should reasonably expect better - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

::::::::::I have presented what I could find, made the case for the stronger sources, and I will respect the consensus of the community, {{u|David Gerard}}. This is not the strongest set of sources I have seen, but I think that there's enough to at least place it in a gray area and apply the principle that there is a presumption of notability. But if consensus goes the other way, this one is not a hill I'm going to die on. That said, other editors (not you) need to lay off the attribution of my motives and stop making threats. Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Reposting of the edit notice given all commentators for this discussion:

::{{editnotice|text=Welcome to the deletion discussion for Sandi Bachom. All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive. |image=File:Information icon.svg}}

:As per the guidelines identified to editors when they post at this discussion, the first paragraph of "How to contribute" states,

::

style="background:#DDFFFF"

AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD.

:Unscintillating (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Although I found plenty of sources, most were just trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

:*{{ping|Adam9007}} This is a proof by assertion.  Please provide examples of what you call "trivial mentions".  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

::*Just a trivial mention:

• http://nypost.com/2014/11/30/graphic-carriage-protest-leaves-child-in-tears/
• http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/dec-5-gun-control-horses-faces-article-1.2455976
• http://nypost.com/2015/01/04/pis-tailing-central-park-carriage-horse-drivers/
• http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/22-republicans-letterman-research-article-1.2231554
• http://www.villagevoice.com/news/what-the-summer-of-desnudas-taught-us-about-tabloids-de-blasio-and-who-really-runs-new-york-7681275
• http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/carriage-drivers-de-blasio-not-cabbies-mayor-blog-entry-1.2030341
• http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304403804579260723282850190
• http://www.thesweetscience.com/articles/15779-unanimous-decision-shadow-box-film-festival-was-a-winner
• http://www.boxingnews24.com/2012/12/shadow-box-film-festival-packs-punch/

These two are the only ones that might be halfway decent, but only halfway:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/fashion/in-the-wrinkle-wars-a-new-weapon.html
• http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/inside-story/Insiders/2014/1/28/where-are-all-theprotests.html

Adam9007 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. His work is not notable by today's standards, so this article might not survive. --BuickCenturyDriver 05:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• {{noping|BuickCenturyDriver}} has been blocked since March 2013 ({{plain link |url=//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog%2Fblock&page=User%3ABuickCenturyDriver |name=log}}), and his vote should be disregarded. Rebbing 21:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. The GNG requires not just coverage, but substantial coverage. The sources claimed to be the strongest: the New Yorker, is a profile of another person altogether, and Bachom is just one of the incidental figures hanging around.It provides almost no information about the subject of this article. The NYT is about a botox studio, she's one of the patients. Al Jazerra is a tribute to Pete Seeger. They interviewed a half dozen of his friends. She was one of them. This is exactly what is meant by non-substantial coverage. If she were notable, she's a film-maker, and this is a field where notable people get really substantial sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

::*{{ping|DGG}} Yes, what is meant by "non-substantial" or "substantial"?  Why do you make WP:IAR arguments, but put a veil over their status as WP:IAR arguments?  Significant coverage does not require that it be the main topic of the article.  Denial Is Not A River in Egypt remains popular 18 years after publication.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

:::*I don't see DGG claiming here that significance requires the subject be the main topic. I've seen some poor AfD arguments from DGG, but this isn't one of them. —swpb^T 13:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yep. Don't be fooled by REFBOMBing in an AFD - David Gerard (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

:::As I said, the New Yorker is the strongest of the sources. But the entire contents about Bachom, in a long article about Manny Goldrich's famous musical instrument store, Manny's Music is "It was Holly Goldrich, Henry’s daughter, who, together with a filmmaker named Sandi Bachom, had the idea for Manny’s Virtual Wall, a social-networking site. " They didn't even bother to mention his films. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.