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. If I am erring, then on the side of caution--inclusion. Final contribution to the AfD gives some indication of notability. Drmies ( talk) 15:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Stefano Zacchiroli (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Another Debian Project Leader, but not notable outside of Debian. James^x 12345 18:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I didn't find significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability through general notability guidelines, didn't meet any of the criteria listed for notability of academics. He's widely published, having co-authored around 50 papers in Google Scholar, mostly in conference proceedings, but at least a couple articles were in journals or books; the most widely cited had 85 citations listed in Google Scholar. If Debian were an academic organization or scolarly journal, then being director would meet academic notability, but it's not. Another test is if "the person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"; in this case, he's a professor of computer science, and helping the Debian project is related to that field, but I'm not really sure how to judge his impact. Since independent reliable source coverage is lacking, there's not really any objective measure of his impact. While I'm sure he had some impact, I don't know how active the organization is or how involved the directorship is, so judging significance is difficult. His Linked In profile includes a couple board positions as well, but nothing really leaps out as meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Some sources I considered, in addition to his own academic writings and references to them: short Linux Today article on 3rd victory, short Linux Magazin Online (German) article on 1st victory, short/medium Linux Magazine (Italian) interview, short article in oneopensource, as well as brief single-sentence mentions/quotes in ITWorld, a book, etc. Some of the sources are questionable as "reliable sources", but even if accepted, the coverage does not meet the "significance" threshold.

–– Agyle ( talk) 09:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete GS h-index of 17 not quite enough in this highly cited field. Too early. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC). reply
• Keep Previous AfD was a strong keep and the factors there appear to still be valid. Indeed, it's unclear why a second AfD is appropriate. In addition, he is now an elected director of the Open Source Initiative, which is notable in itself. ClareTheSharer ( talk) 21:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:GNG says "from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user"; the previous AfD was four years ago. I read the previous discussion, and disagreed with the reasoning presented. Of 6 keep votes, 1 gave no reason, 2 said only that a Debian project leader is notable (kind of like your OSI director statement) without suggesting how that met Wikipedia's notability guidelines, 1 listed five short (1-3 paragraph) articles about the election that I wouldn't consider significant coverage, and two listed Linux Today and IT Wire coverage. The only Linux Today article I found has just three one-sentence paragraphs, which isn't significant. The IT Wire article I overlooked, as it's listed as an opinion piece with a prominent disclaimer disavowing its content; I'm a bit conflicted about accepting interviews as independent RS's for notability purposes, but even allowing it, IT Wire seems to be the only source like that. Agyle ( talk) 23:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The reason why the first AfD was kept may be because it went to only one forum (list of Software-related deletion discussions). Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC). reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc 21 19:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Debian#Project_leaders would be preferable to outright deletion per WP:ATD. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 15:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete and Redirect I think unless more significant sources are found, subject fails WP:GNG and it would be appropriate to link people to the Debian page as per Joe's comment.
• Keep notability is cumulative; if Debian leader and OSI director are not notable enough in isolation (IMO they are), having covered both roles is certainly notable. Then, the man seems to be well known in open source at large, not only Debian. For instance, LWN.net has covered his doings fairly often, e.g. 1, 2, 3, more at 4. Finally, he seems to be quite popular here in Italy (e.g. interview for La Repubblica radio interview on Rai Radio 2, Wired, and other recent articles on la presse, Corriere Della Sera 5, and Il Manifesto 6) and France ( 7, 8, 9)

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.