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. All points considered. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura DiDio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is a classic coatrack article. The real subject of this article isn't Laura DiDio, it's the SCO-Linux controversies. Hey! Look! We already have an article on that. Laura DiDio doesn't meet our notability guidelines because there are not reliable, third-party sources in which she is the subject of coverage. Incidentally, according to the talk page, this article was initially titled Didiot, and that remained a redirect until 2009. We shouldn't be covering, let alone repeating, non-notable nasty names from blogs and Slashdot. This article is a disgrace and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 18:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable person at the fringe of notable events/controversy. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 18:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, obvious WP:COATRACK indeed. JBsupreme (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A lot of Open Source supporters would like to erase her existence. But this doesn't mean she isn't notable, and, if we're going to get rid of DiDio, perhaps PJ should go too? Put aside your bias, vote to keep based on notability. =//= Proxy User (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have redacted the vicious personal attacks made earlier by Proxy User. [1] Thank you for since refactoring. JBsupreme (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The above comment is a totally unnecessary personal attack that has no relevancy to this discussion at all. I understand you disagree with me, but how about keeping it "on topic"? Proxy User (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. For the record, you originally wrote some seriously heinous shit that need not be repeated. These are your own words, and they are the only attacks made herein. The closing administrator should take note of this and weigh your !vote accordingly, perhaps you have an ulterior motive here. What you wrote is easily cause for a block should it ever continue. JBsupreme (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Are you suggesting the deciding Admin make a decision *not* based solely on the merits of the article? That's a dishonest position to take. I hope and expect that the Admin who takes on this issue will see that the article itself may need work but that the person is in fact notable, and the desire to delete the article is based solely on the nominator's dislike of the individual. That is, of course, not a valid reason to delete an article. Proxy User (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - The only unnecessary attack was the comment you made, PU. What you said was a serious violation of WP:BLP, and therefore, is strictly prohibited. Secondly, calling JB's edits vandalism is also not allowed, given your edit violated BLP, it was not vandalism to refactor it. You made a very wise choice refactoring it, otherwise you likely wouldn't be able to edit any other page but your talk.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - So in fact this page is not to discuss the merits of the article but rather to present a contrived façade that lets everyone feel that a fair decision was made? I think it’s pretty clear from the non-discussion going on here that many here are not really interested in fleshing out the merits / non-merits of the article, but rather pushing for a political decision to delete based not on the question of “is Didio notable” (she clearly is), but rather “we don’t like her, let’s expel her from Wikipedia”. BROVO! =//= Proxy User (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Notice - You are not allowed to guess at the motivations of others. Such is a personal attack, cease and desist.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment - Oh good grief! You're joking. That's quite asinine. Please be specific when you cite exactly where at Wikipedia such a rule is codified? If you take it as a personal attack, that's your thin skin, but I'll be surprised if such a thing is more than a gross misinterpretation of something completely different. Please stay ON TOPIC and discuss the AfD. Because it seems that you are more interested in shouting me down than discussing the actual subject of this page, as I have. Now, Lora Didio is quite disliked for good reasons, but she played a big part in the SCO business, and any discussion of SCO is simply incomplete without mention of Didio. =//= Proxy User (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • • Reply - I am staying on topic. While this page is about the AFD, this subthread was about your gross violation of BLP. As per the policy cite request, WP:NPA. I am not joking, you are not allowed to guess at another user's motives. It is an accusation, and therefore a personal attack. You can't handle wikipedia policy? The door is over there. A user's skin thickness is irrelevant, you don't like policy, you can leave, but you are not allowed to accuse others without evidence. Lastly, you're the only one shouting with your bold and caps.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment OK, enough with this subthread. The BLP issues have been raised at ANI. Any closing admin reading through this will know to check through the history of this article and the ANI thread, and will take them into account however they view it. There's nothing more to be added to this. Thanks. GedUK  09:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Reply - What are you talking about? This issue was not raised at ANI. If you are referring to the 'burden' topic, that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, but an entirely different matter.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Guidelines for AFD commentary, it's the only reason I came to this AfD. GedUK  08:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Oh. Thank you for the link. Well, I'm done. Goodnight(even though it is technically morning).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the article reads more as a Mesian version of another article. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 08:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. JBsupreme (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - get your coat love, you've pulled. GiantSnowman 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JB and Jeremy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom, JB, and Jeremy.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since I was once a regular Groklaw reader she is well known to me, but even there I couldn't find the kind of discussion of her that would be enough if Groklaw wasn't a blog (which it is, although a notable one). There may be some information out there on the web, hard to find since searches for her name bring up myriads of articles written by her. But it appears not to be the case. Therefore, until someone proves otherwise: very well known, but not technically notable. Hans Adler 01:02, 19 November 2009 (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.