- 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keren Elazari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. There are no awards or any discussion of her significance, no interviews even that I can locate (there might have been a blog at Haaretz but I can't access it even in IA and google results for "A Day in the Life of Keren Elazari" produce just the Wikipedia entry so it hardly inspires confidence). All we have is the fact that she published two articles in larger outlets (Scientific American and WIRED) and gave one TED talk. Her academic work on GScholar shows citations in single digit, so it is not particularly impactful, so no NPROF save here. Our article also claims she is a co-author of one book (Women in Tech) but our article on said book does not list any co-authors (nor does a search for the book at WorldCat and such; although a glance on the cover does reveal she was one of several contributors, probably an author of a chapter or such). I am afraid that's not enough for a Wikipedia page. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: A quick search indicates that she's regularly referred to as an expert on matters of internet security. Here's one example[1]. As such, it seems very useful to have a wiki page explaining who she is. She's also listed as a topic on google news[2]. If one looks through that list, at least one or two additional RS references seem to come up. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Our policy is, however, WP:NOTABILITY not WP:ITSUSEFUL. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe go back and re-read WP:ITSUSEFUL, because it seems explicit that "usefulness" is part of deciding if a page should stay: "...you need to say why the article is useful or useless." The page might be borderline WP:GNG, but borderline GNG, plus useful, seems like more than enough reason to not delete this article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have just done some work to properly cite and clean up the article, and there are sources covering her in depth (MIT Technology Review podcast, CBC.ca) as well as abundant briefer mentions describing her as a "cybersecurity expert" in publications including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc. As for Piotr's comment about interviews, I have found many: Haaretz, TED Blog, MIT Technology Review, Forbes Israel, CNN (ProQuest 1796066799), etc. I'm continuing to add to it now but I think the GNG threshold has been met here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the CBC source about her? [3]? She is just interviewed to give some opinions about stuff. I still don't think we have any SiGCOV about her. Yes, she is mentioned here and there as an expert, but does it mean she passes NBIO? I am still doubtful. Who calls her significant for the field, where are awards, other recognition beyond some media requests for her to comment on stuff? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- She is pretty much consistently described as an expert in the field, which I think is a pointer to her significance. I'm suggesting here that she meets the GNG, by the way, not NPROF. I'm not sure what you mean about the CBC source—the whole thing is about her. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, the CBC article is about good vs bad hackers and just quotes her as the main source. What does it say about her outside briefly summarizing who she is and treating her as an expert? Not all experts are notable. To demonstrate she is one we need reliable SIGCOV about her. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's entirely about her and her talk at the Halifax conference, it dives a bit into the content of her talk (the portion about bug bounties), it talks about her early inspiration for getting into the field, etc. It's hardly a passing mention. To be clear, I'm not arguing that this one article is the sole source indicating notability, but it is one of several that discuss her in detail. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As a separate note, citation #4 (the Forbes Israel story) was the cover story: [4]. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. High-quality sources establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Adequately sourced to get over the GNG bar. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think she is fairly notable based on her appearance at the Forbes article and her interview at the MIT Technology Review which is editorially independent.Eesan1969 (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2021 (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.