From the action deletion discussion: "The result was delete. As far as I can tell, the numbers are split about 7-6 in favour of delete. That's not normally goi

From the action deletion discussion: "The result was delete. As far as I can tell, the numbers are split about 7-6 in favour of delete. That's not normally going to lead to a consensus to delete unless there are unusual circumstances, such as one side having significantly stronger arguments than the other, so much as that can be ascertained objectively. In this case, the final three unchallenged delete !votes—DGG, ItsZippy and Metropolitan90—demonstrate such strength. DGG and Metropolitan90 highlight a number of fundamental misconceptions behind a number of the keep !votes, such as the inaccuracy of the assertions that the subject's work was covered significantly in The Google story and that The Google story is a Pulitzer prize-winning book. DGG also demonstrates with clear evidence that the subject's own book is not as prominent as asserted, without any evidence, by some on the keep side. ItsZippy is the only editor in the debate, on either side, to comprehensively discuss the sources on offer as opposed to making generalised assertions about the sufficiency of the sourcing. That those delete !votes have stood for between 7 and 13 days without any challenge leads me to conclude that there is a consensus to delete" More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessie_Stricchiola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.... Two thoughts: yes, the back pages of Wikipedia are tricky to navigate for non-experts, it took me a while to find that link. No, Wikipedians are not all unfriendly deletionists.