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 no consensus. I can't determine, in a good faith, that discussion leans towards any other outcome. Merging that was proposed by some people in this discussion should be discussed on the article's talk page. Max Semenik (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Temple-Wood

[edit]
Emily Temple-Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I realise this might be a sensitive and emotional issue, since we should all be proud of Temple-Wood's work, and appreciative of the acknowledgement she has received. But the sources here do not demonstrate notability: the article really only has one source that has significant coverage. Firstly, it should be clear that none of the pre-March 2016 sources provide significant coverage. Secondly, there is significant coverage of the subject across a number of news outlets in March 2016, but these should be treated as a single source. The reason is that they are all derived from the initial Wikimedia blog post, and none of them have added a scrap of additional information. Any additional commentary concerns Wikipedia and/or systemic bias, and not Temple-Wood herself. Thus, the article demonstrates significant coverage in what is essentially only one source, and thus fails WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was exaggerating with "not a scrap", but the additions are so trivial. The Washington Post adds how she makes herself a cup of tea. I hadn't noticed the BBC article before, and I see it does add a bit, but it is still essentially the same story. StAnselm (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the initial Wikimedia blog post (in my day job), I'm not going to !vote here, and I'm making this comment only in my volunteer capacity. That said, for background context, the blog inspired a lot of coverage, sure—but at least five established news outlets felt that the person and story was good enough for their own full interview rather than rewriting my post. Also, StAnselm, you really think that the Washington Post included mention of the tea because they thought it was important? No. It's simply a great way to hook readers into reading a story. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, it seems the five interviews are still producing the same information over and over again. (Which is understandable; they all ask the same sort of questions, and get the same sort of answers.) StAnselm (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason for saying this that doesn't involve looking into a crystal ball? StAnselm (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You must have missed my validation so I'll repeat it just for you: there are a number of reasons that justify keeping it, including'coverage it received as well as the topic itself. The rest simply took it a step further meaning after my reason for keeping. Atsme📞📧 07:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SSTflyer: Could you show me where in policy this is echoed? I don't think I've heard of that sentiment, nor do I believe it to be very reasonable in the first place, especially given the circumstances surrounding "where the coverage is derived from"; for example, does Buzzfeed not rehash a single article a hundred times? →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A single website rehashing the single article multiple times is different from multiple websites independently reporting on the same subject. sst✈ 07:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the nature of the independent reporting is a factor to consider. We have only seen an enormous spike in articles in the past two weeks, all of them rehashing the same article from the Wikimedia blog. There are no prior sources indicating notability, and to claim that there may be more notable sources in the future is to overlook the entire notion of articles requiring notability in the first place. →Σσς. (Sigma) 18:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW: Could you elucidate as to why the first two links you've given are relevant? I don't have access to Highbeam, and as for the second, I don't see why it contributes to a claim of notability (see my response below). Thanks, →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Σ The article is a biography. It is not a technical piece requiring peer reviewed articles. Were she still a high school student, the information would have no bearing. She is not. They both show that she been in the news over time, has pursued science with accomplishment since her childhood and the Patch piece gives biographical data not found anywhere else. Would I put her personal information in the file? No, but it exists and adds weight in an evidentiary argument. (Had I made the statement that there was sourcing going back to 2011 without providing evidence that would have been questioned, I have no doubt.) The claim was made that there were no noted accomplishments prior to the blog post, which is an incorrect statement given the chain of evidence that does exist. SusunW (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I support Gerda, who probably deserves an article about herself for her tieless efforts in this regard. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the articles have shown that she has had coverage over time. The recent articles are the meaty ones, like the BBC, but she has been noticed by the media in the past, over time and that's why she's not BLP1E Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Σ, those who have !voted KEEP above have already provided the "cold hard data." Multiple reliable sources and coverage over time leads to GNG. You and I are interpreting the evidence differently. I think you're wrong and that's why I !voted as I did. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who deals with "cold, hard data" as their actual job, and has for some time rather than recreationally for the last few months, the idea that "I searched Google News" is anything close to scientific is hokum and bunkum. Google News is one aggregation of some sources: a simple google search would have shown you several you've missed. Moreover, Wikipedia's standards are not quantitative: while knowing that there are N pieces of coverage is useful it is neither redeeming nor damning but instead one small aspect of the conversation around notability.
  • To suggest that looking at one quantitative aggregation of some sources constitutes the entirety of an argument in an ultimately subjective discussion is to make a tremendous mistake. It is to misunderstand the scientific method, the nature of Wikipedia, and to misuse data. If you want to argue based on Google News hits, do so, but do not go around treating your research as if it is the totality of the conversation, or infallible; it's neither. It's one facet of a wider discussion that's far more nuanced than your work seems to have considered. Ironholds (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ironholds and Megalibrarygirl: Thank you for your response.
a simple google search would have shown you several you've missed I will admit that I did not mention Google-Google in my comments. I did begin with a simple Google search but abandoned it for Google News after being unable to find anything contributing to notability before 2012. I concede that there is a full-length piece in HuffPo about Emily from 2014—my mistake for restricting the date—however: HuffPost tech The Blog [...] by Netha Hussain; Medical student, blogger, Wikipedian. Are there any other sources that you had in mind that haven't already been brought to the table?
My goal is to make the case the subject is non-notable under BLP1E and its article should be deleted. I claim only that this is indeed BLP1E because of an absence of coverage that constitutes notability outside the recent wave of articles prompted by the Wikimedia blog post. I claim that that there is no flexibility in determining whether, for example, the graphs of f(x) = |x-1| or f(x) = sin(x)/x start out near zero, increase greatly at a point, and then return to near zero. Unless you have picked up better tricks at your job and are willing to use them to address the concerns of BLP1E, please don't accuse me of charlatantry, "hokum and bunkum" or otherwise. →Σσς. (Sigma) 19:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"contributing to notability before 2012" sorry, but if your argument that this person is notable for only one event includes knowingly be aware of coverage four years ago, they're not notable for one event. And the fact that you think a deletion discussion is equivalent to a maths problem with a formal, scientific proof - the fact that you think this is a quantitative question at all - indicates that you're still not getting it. Ironholds (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if your argument that this person is notable for only one event includes knowingly be [sic] aware of coverage four years ago Today's your lucky day, because I never claimed that. Sorry, but if you're unwilling to read what I write even 10% as thoroughly as you'd read a paper, neither of us have anything to gain from this engagement and I'm not going to waste time with it. I am willing to wait for you to reconsider but consider this remark a non-response. →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssr: Would you agree, then, that the subject is non-notable? →Σσς. (Sigma) 17:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable according to reliable sources. --ssr (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssr: That's great, but some users are concerned that the sources do not actually demonstrate notability due to WP:BLP1E, so perhaps you'd be able to start with them. →Σσς. (Sigma) 19:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good point, but absent a stated preference for deletion I don't think that's something we need to get into too much. I know she's been asked, but haven't seen an explicit answer as to whether she would prefer deletion. @Keilana: I'm sure you're not terribly enthusiastic about jumping into this AfD :) but as this is clearly moving towards keep, if you would prefer it be deleted that's worth bringing up now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been explicitly avoiding all this but apparently the people are asking to hear my voice, the wiki is facing a difficult choice...to be honest, I don't really care, it's up to the community's interpretation of policy. *permanently ducks out of this discussion* :) Keilana (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policies state that the subject must be broadly covered in independent, reliable sources: the sources seem reliable to me, the coverage is broad (entire articles) and they're about her, not necessarily Wikipedia. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bejnar: What would you make of GiraffeData, then? The circumstances are similar: a week's worth of news articles about an editor who spends years tackling a problem. I admit that GiraffeData does not have one or two quotes sprinkled across the past, but I think the fact that the subject of this AfD does get mentioned in one sentence every now and then in articles that talk about Wikipedia or the problems of Wikipedia or the coverage of Wikipedia or the general culture of Wikipedia or other stuff about Wikipedia indicates that it is actually Wikipedia, not her, that is notable. →Σσς. (Sigma) 20:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Σ: (1) We are not talking about just incidental mentions here, we are talking about in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. (2) Saying that Wikipedia is notable, therefore its individual editors cannot be, is only slightly removed from "Since Congress is notable, its members cannot be notable for their work there." I think the larger issue is one of vanity articles about Wikipedia editors. This instance does not even come close to that line. "Each article to be evaluated on its own merits" is a pretty good rule. --Bejnar (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my response below. Thanks! →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you challenging every Keep vote? It looks like badgering to me, especially when you repeatedly ask similar questions. Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very few comments by keep voters are actually addressing the primary concern over whether the subject is BLP1E. I am personally very curious, especially because my own original remark has received minimal commentary; I'm not meaning to be a nuisance. →Σσς. (Sigma) 20:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Σ: Actually several of your comments seem to address the relative non-independence of the main-stream media sources, rather than WP:BLP1E. Or is the one an argument for the other? I think the independence issue has been settled, even if the impetus came from a single specific article. As you noted above, proximity in time of the articles, does not indicate proximity in time of what is covered. --Bejnar (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind response, I appreciate it.
I don't mean to say that because WP is notable, WP editors aren't. I simply claim that the subject of this article is not notable because (ignore the recent wave of articles; I will address them immediately) the only times that she's mentioned in the news is only in passing mention: a sentence-long quote is attributed to her in an article that is ultimately about Wikipedia, not any individual or any group of people.
You're right in that the overarching theme of my argument is that this is BLP1E. I think my own delete vote makes the case best. I continue to maintain that the news articles from last week are little more than "reblogs" and permutations of one another. But even if they weren't we've only been seeing these news articles for a week and all three mentions of the subject before now a) are quote one sentence by her, while holding Wikipedia as the focus, or b) don't contribute to claiming that the subject is notable because they concern non-notable topics (eg high school) or are written by bloggers and Wikipedians (eg the HuffPo and BBC sources).
Maybe this wave of news articles is just because North Korea is quiet this week and everyone's tired of reading about AlphaGo or Donald Trump fifty times, and after this week, she'll never be mentioned again so prominently, just as GiraffeData's brief wave of articles faded to mere memories. If it is, then this is a classic BLP1E and should be deleted as such.
Maybe it isn't. If it isn't, then perhaps the subject of the article will be covered later, and this wave of news articles will transcend just a wave and become something greater. Then perhaps the subject will not be just a fluke of the mass media, but rather, actually notable.
But we Wikipedians don't make predictions like that. So as far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines are concerned, this is BLP1E until we have new sources to say otherwise. →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think DHeyward has misread the terms of reference: s/he seams to think this AfD is about a "notable female scientist". Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 23:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a bit pointy, but if this level of notability is indicative of the current state of WP coverage of notable women, then we are done. Personally, I can name 100 women in tech with as much or more notability than this subject. If I take gender and tech out of the equation, I'd note that Newyorkbrad has notability beyond the subject but I am unaware of a BLP (correct me if I am wrong, but there are probably 10 more that I could name without a BLP article). This article only trivializes the issue of coverage of women. It does not enhance it. The overwhelming "Keep" votes suggest a culture that trivializes women to the extent that ArbCom Wikipedian interns are "notable" as if the list were exhausted. Even reviewing patent disclosures with female names shows thousands of woman that exist beyond the navel of Wikipedia. The feel good "Keep" votes that exist to counter guilt of systemic bias don't help remove systemic bias, they reinforce it. --DHeyward (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SSTflyer. You have correctly summed up the various arguments.--Ipigott (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source saying she has created a "large" number of articles? She has, in fact, created 366, which in WP is not all that many. (She is ranked 2332nd in pages created.) StAnselm (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VNT. sst✈ 09:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So? That doesn't answer my question at all. Again I ask, do you have a reliable source saying she has created a "large" number of articles? The Wikimedia blog post says she created "hundreds" of articles - which is true - but it doesn't say that this is a "large" number. (As a point of fact, it quotes User:Seeeko as saying "hundreds of articles about women scientists", but the actual number seems to be between 100 and 200; lots of the 366 are craters.) StAnselm (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if you want to whittle down the amount of articles to between 100 and 200, that's still "hundreds." But that's not the number. It's 366 and does it matter if some are craters? I believe some of the craters were named after the women who discovered them which adds to the Women in Science project. And as a person who writes articles about women, I'd say 366 is a large number of articles. Writing about women in history isn't easy and takes a lot of patience and strong research skills. Women get lost in history. They get referred to by many different names. Just because you don't think 366 is a large number doesn't mean other people would agree. Furthermore, her project itself helps recruit and maintain focus for other editors to create articles. She is the catalyst that helped create them. Heck, I was brought out of lurking on Wikipedia when I found out from the wikiproject that there was a gender gap. I became mobilized and so did other people who care about such things. So basically, I'm saying you're nitpicking and not looking at the bigger picture. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If she make the NBA we can reconsider but it's demonstrably false that we have articles on sports people. Every Division I football or basketball recruit is covered in multiple sources over a period of time. They are ranked and sorted. Recruiting classes are ranked in national publications. They have press conferences and press releases. They don't merit Wikipedia articles. Every athlete kicked off a Division I NCAA team for misconduct has multiple sources discussing the misconduct with sometimes a follow up or multiple followups with legal proceedings. ETW has received coverage for Wikipedia contribution, but that's notable for Wikipedia not ETW. --DHeyward (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just said it: she received coverage for her contribution to Wikipedia. She was in the news for what she actually did here. Unless those articles wrote themselves and the WikiProject assembled itself, I would say ETW should be recognized for the work she did, not Wikipedia as a whole. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a notable paragraph in an article on Wikipedia. It's not a notable BLP. Just like The Ohio State University may have a 5 star recruiting class, that's not notable for OSU. Even though the high school students in the class received multiple, independent, reliably sourced coverage about being a 5 star recruit, doesn't make them notable. Nor do we create articles on them. ETW's work is wikipedia. It belongs as a sentence or paragraph in an article dedicated to WP, not a BLP. --DHeyward (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's false. Or rather the bar to become a star at OSU is significantly higher with multiple, national articles over a period of time.. Note the coverage of a recruit "Rashard Lawrence" in google. Coverage is large yet accomplishment is only for being noticed. --DHeyward (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are not understanding the metaphor here. My point is that individuals who are part of a greater group can be recognized for their contribution to the group on their own. That's all. The metaphor is that football stars can be noticed and written about and so can editors to Wikipedia if they have enough coverage to pass GNG. The metaphor could just as easily be: if a CERN scientist makes a significant contribution to the project they will have an article if they have enough GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand it and for CERN scientists it's usually a Nobel prize before it peeks our curiousity. Go read their CV's and virtually all have published, peer reviewed papers and awards - but like Wikipedia, it's a rather closed group of peers. Same with any national laboratory. But I think it was Michael Mann who said "No matter how brilliant your discovery, you aren't going to be on the Tonight Show." The But you bring a point: Can you name the top three scientists at CERN? Or Lawrence Livermore National labs? Maybe you can but I can't but I'd expect that they would be in the articles about the labs. We have notability standards for professors and such but nothing for students or Wikipedians. The fact I know more about ETW from Wikipedia than Michael Cates is part of our systemic bias and navel gazing. And you can still google Rashard Lawrence. 5 star recruit, lots of articles. No way he passes notability for an athlete, though. --DHeyward (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really don't understand the argument that we need to reduce the amount of articles on Wiki, like Iridescent is worried about. If they pass GNG, why not have an article? If people are in the news, other people will want to know about them, therefore, we should have an article if there are enough RS. I still don't think Wiki is running out of server space or that anyone will be upset if they are able to find information about some obscure footballer or whatever thing "we" think is not really "notable" enough; I think the opposite is true in that people searching will be able to find the information they needed from a good source. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF, WP:NPA come to mind when reading your comment. What part of this article fails WP:BLP? AusLondonder (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit rich coming from you, AusLondonder, considering your personal attacks on this page and refusal to assume good faith. StAnselm (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aus, this is an obvious BLP1E case. All the sources are hyper-recent, subject remains low-profile except within the Wikipedia community, and the lead makes it clear this is a non notable individual. But yes, I do understand lots of people here consider "Delete" to be a personal attack. I have no response to that. Townlake (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I totally disagree with your characterisation of notability. I simply cannot see how BLP1E applies here. However I didn't suggest supporting deletion in itself was a personal attack. I think it is rather cheap however to say the article about Emily Temple-Wood is "navel-gazing silliness" AusLondonder (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, yeah, thanks for the catch. I'm not very smart, don't have to worry about Temple-Wood writing an article about me! Townlake (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So we have a handful of Wikimedia sources, a few pieces of routine coverage from spelling bee events, and a bunch of articles about one thing: writing Wikipedia articles as a response to harassment, and many of those are still trivial in depth. I'm sorry, but per WP:ROUTINE and WP:BLP1E, this just isn't enough. —Torchiest talkedits 06:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC) (Additional remark: I think merging to gender bias on Wikipedia would also be a reasonable way to decide this. —Torchiest talkedits 23:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Careful with that evidence. The New York Magazine article, far from being "coverage of the female scientist project, very short, no analysis", is four good-sized paragraphs, every one of which actually names Temple-Wood, and it explains (analysis) that " female scientists often receive emails from male colleagues that are leering, lascivious, and unwarranted: all examples of sexual harassment in the workplace. In an effort to make the best of this crappy situation, Temple-Wood decided ...". I understand your desire to debunk and delete, but if you are presenting evidence, you must present it fairly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That so-called "evidence" of non-notability is extremely misleading. Many of the articles are quite different to the way they have been characterised by Torchiest. AusLondonder (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The NYMag source doesn't have analysis. It simply restates what other sources have already said, and links to every source it's repeating. The first paragraph is saying what's in the Wikimedia Blog post it links to. The part you quoted is prefaced with "As geobiology professor A. Hope Jahren wrote in the New York Times last week..." and a link to another source. The paragraph after that is one large quote from the Wikimedia Blog. The fourth paragraph is a simply restating of the article title with a few examples pulled from the article list linked to in that paragraph. If you feel I've mischaracterized any other sources, please provide a specific example. —Torchiest talkedits 12:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's unquestionably analysis, wherever it came from; the magazine is certainly a reliable source; and it is entirely proper for it to link or cite its sources, just as we should. I picked simply the most egregious example of mischaracterisation, and I remain of that opinion. I'd point out, since you ask, that your claim that many of the other refs concern "a single event" has already been dismissed by a number of other editors, and I agree with them: Temple-Wood's considerable history of editing, and being reported, is in no sense one event but a definite process containing many events. Please read their comments above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That peculiar interpretation so far has only been explicitly stated by Jclemens (below), and it has "already been dismissed" by Opabinia regalis as strain[ing] the definition of "event" well past its natural breaking point. I didn't feel the need to pile on at the time, but now that you're jumping that particular wagon... That surely was not the intent of the BLP1E/BIO1E. By that twisted logic, e.g. a mother of quadruple twins would become instantly eligible for our article because 1) she is notable for four events (births) 1) multiple newspapers recorded these "events". No such user (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the New York Magazine article, I don't think Torchiest is mischaracterising it at all. It's exactly the same content that was in the original wikimedia blog post. (Including the dubious statement, "She’s created hundreds of articles about women scientists.") StAnselm (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting since the discussion continues--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero and JMWt: The article's subject has already commented in this discussion, saying "to be honest, I don't really care, it's up to the community's interpretation of policy." —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: we try our best to exclude articles about Wikipedia’s critics. That’s the real agenda here ..., sorry but that is your usual bombast. Who is "we" and what examples of "we" doing so can you present? Eg: Wikipediocracy. As for Jimbo, sure, he has ridden on the coat-tails of a voluntary workforce for years but he is noted for other things, even if they're mostly connected (eg: various significant monetary awards that have been widely reported). You;re just doing the usual casting of aspersions, although at least on this occasion you've reined-in the acerbic aspect, which I suppose is good. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, WP:N does go on to say that passing WP:GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." StAnselm (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-discussion

[edit]
Unsurprisingly, I completely agree; "individuals as case studies" is a good way of summarizing this pattern. OMG, someone called me "succinct"! ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely and to the extent it may be a harmful precedent. --DHeyward (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused how using GNG in this case or in the case of any person who becomes notable for what they do on Wikipedia could be a harmful precedent. Do we not have enough server space for wiki articles that we have to be worried about writing too much? Or are you worried about the "quality" of Wikipedia? If someone is in the news for any reason at all, people want to know more about them. I would hope they can find that information here on Wikipedia. A quality work IMO covers people who are in the news, even if they are do-nothings like the Kardashians. We may not like the coverage, but if it's there, we should continue to provide the service of creating bios to cover those people. (My two cents) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The concern is that the "pull" that attracted attention was "one article on notable women for every harassing occurrence" perceived by the subject. That's great for building Wikipedia. It's not, however, a good precedent for setting notability of accomplished women based on ETW experience. "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" but wikipedia would be better off if all the keep votes generated an article on a notable woman scientist that is not present, just ETw is doing. When we start creating articles that look as if we are expanding coverage of women, this is a poor choice. It's navel gazing. There is no way to separate the coverage of the subject from the effort she is driving but effort is Wikipedia, not ETW. --DHeyward (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just disagree with you. There's nothing wrong with meta. There are such things as catalogs of catalogs, for example. Having information about a person who is perceived to have significantly contributed to the thing itself is quite natural. These things exist in real life (author bios in encyclopedias). I also don't think that there is any damage to the precedent of notability for other women (or men) based on keeping this article, which I think passes GNG. And we could say that our time may be better served by writing new articles, but it's also valuable for editors to discuss their positions on various topics so that we may hopefully reach consensus, and if not, at least understand the dissenting views. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are these things, yet if we filled out the coverage of women to be equal in number to men by creating a number of articles with the depth and longevity of this article, it would feel hollow and disingenuous. Today, for example, I read an articl in the paper of a 20 year ER nurse that quit nursing and became a veterinarian. Her story in just that tidbit was because she was a good Samaritan trying to help the victim of a hit-and-run accident (he didn't survive, which is how this side story attracted press). Who is more notable: the intern at the paper that writes lots of Human Interest articles or the ER nurse turned veterinarian? WP answer: neither are notable. --DHeyward (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you on the substance, I think that you are framing your position too much in the "gender gap" terms, which might unnecessarily polarize or stray the debate. I don't have an impression that the article about Emily was created just because she's a woman, or that her gender has too much to do with her purported notability (it's just the circumstances that he writes about, and in spite of, the gender bias). My impression is that the article about e.g. Simon Pulsifer was created with similar premises about Wikipedian notability an similar (mis)interpretation of WP:GNG. No such user (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, No such user for your comment. I'm not arguing to keep this article "just because she's a woman" or to argue that it's even possible to have a 50/50 ratio men to women on Wiki. History is what is has been and there has just not been enough coverage or opportunities for women to make it 50/50 at this point. However, what I am saying is that if there is enough media coverage to write an article about someone (woman, man or other), why not have it on Wiki? How does it possibly hurt the project as a whole? Information is provided to people looking for it. The information on Wiki is neutral (hopefully) and points users to relevant sources. That is a good service to the online community and useful to the public as a whole who as a group rely on Wiki for information. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want it to say "If it weren't for this one event [sic], this person wouldn't be notable"? That's not what it says, and the implication now is that any non-event coverage in any RS renders BLP1E inapplicable, which I discern is unsatisfactory to those urging its applicability.
Do we want to redefine "event"? I wrote WP:WI1E almost entirely to try and solve the nonsensical and expanding definition of an event two U.S. Presidential Election seasons ago, and yet we still have people arguing that a series of related events comprise an event.
Do we want to eliminate the WP:LPI prong for BLP1E? Right now, it's written so that BLP1E never applies to a non-low-profile individual, and the subject here is not low profile as we currently define it--Again, full disclosure, I wrote that years ago to try and document consensus as it existed at the time. Has that consensus changed?
The closing admin has the unenviable task of trying to sort this out in this one specific case, but the community should really decide whether to endorse, modify, or scrap the work that has already been done to try and settle such questions. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, your comment above - each creation of an article is a separate event - strains the definition of "event" well past its natural breaking point. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning what? That an article creation is multiple events? That doesn't seem a useful way to describe it, and that wouldn't support what you argue above. I presume you're meaning it the other way around--which doesn't fit the definition of 'event' nearly as well. Is that seriously what you mean? I think that's what you're saying... but the definition doesn't parse like that. If she wrote a series of connected articles in a specific defined time frame, that could be construed as an event... but absent an identifiable umbrella ("summer of creating articles on female scientists") I still don't see how you can call a series of similar events (articles created) "one event". Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If each individual article were separately attracting media attention, then we'd have a reason to consider this reading. But they're not. 12/22 of the sources in this article deal with the same thing, the recent "for every harassing email" meme. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming for the sake of argument we lump all the continuing, ongoing coverage of the subject's Wikipedia work into one event, you still have two problems: first, she's not a low profile individual (and I'm lumping all the DC chapter stuff in here, since it's not really easy to say it's independent RS), and second, she has other RS coverage, admittedly for a spelling bee. Either of those invalidate the BLP1E arguments as the policies are currently written. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How ironic it would be to delete an article about a woman whose main contributions are drawing attention to the neglect of women on WP. As the article about her in The Guardian points out, articles about women are more likely to be deleted, because they are harder to source, because of a bias in coverage. Surely anyone reading about gender bias on WP, alleged or otherwise, would want to read about Emily, here? When I started History of Feminism I was immediately attacked by some editors who took issue with the statement by women historians that the history of women is about the history of the erasure of women from history, despite the statement being well sourced. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This unquestionably is another example of how WP can be a microcosm of real life; the very invisibillity and dismissiveness women are given is being played out here, above and beyond Emily's relative notability. No question that some policy-level discussions are needed both about GNG and the notability standards for prominent wikipedians. Montanabw(talk) 18:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent
[edit]

Please recall Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Stierch and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Stierch_(2nd_nomination). The main difference between the two AfDs was that by the time of the second AfD, the article had come to include some very unflattering material. Intellectual honesty requires making a decision that a person is either notable, so that Wikipedia has a duty to the public to report about them in an unbiased manner, or not, without regard for whether the article is flattering or not. So the standard Keep voters should apply is, would they still vote "keep" if the article should one day become a significant employment problem for Emily? If not, then they should not vote "keep" now; if yes, they should stick to their vote. (It's worth noting here that the subject's preference is allowed to have an impact on AfD decisions for biographies of marginally notable people, but I'd suggest (1) that where Wikipedians are concerned, that allowance should be used very sparingly, and (2) the above test is still worth doing in your mind.) --Andreas JN466 22:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We owe it to all our subjects, but especially the living ones, to keep things balanced. BLP allows just about every process and rule to be suspended when necessary to do the right thing, so we should be up to the challenge. Personally, I detest the idea that we consider the subject's wishes in whether to keep a BLP or not: Notability is or isn't met, and if it is met, we should be able to write a balanced, appropriate article. Allowing subject preference to influence article existence is exactly what we oppose with paid advocacy--why should we make a diametrically opposed ruling for living persons articles? Jclemens (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is the aspect of WP:UNDUE weight -- negativity seems to be deemed more notable coverage for women, while BIO1E for people like Lawnchair Larry seems to be ignored. Seems like women are treated with more harshness and that third party coverage that presents a negative view of them somehow goes viral faster than any positive coverage; I think of individuals such as Anita Sarkeesian, who were notable before Gamergate, but exploded in notability following negative attacks. Likewise, even Hilary Clinton is an example, compare the behind the scenes chatter at her articles, look at tone, dismissive attitudes, etc. Sexism is alive and well on Wikipedia; that said, it is heartening that we are at least discussing it. Montanabw(talk) 18:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sexism on Wikipedia should not be tolerated. However, to the extent that there is sexism in mainstream media, DUE demands we follow it, in that our coverage needs to follow what the RS'es say, even if they're being buttheads. That's probably not what any of us want, but there is no real way to be partial and impartial at the same time, is there? Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Teaching the controversy is appropriate, due and undue weight was extensively discussed in the Gamergate case(s) and applies here. Montanabw(talk) 15:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

[edit]

I just relisted the article since the discussion continues, but it would be great if we already start thinking about closing. Ideally we would have three admins closing the discussion, but if this is not possible may be one perspective closer volunteers. I can not be one since I made a couple of remarks here (though I did not vote nor indicated what I think) and I will be mostly off-line in the end of the week.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be leaning towards Keep. I recognise it isn't a vote. However, from my count we are running at around 40 deletes and around 55 keeps. AusLondonder (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a vote, and a closing statement keep without analysis of the discussion would not be appropriate. Otherwise, everybody could just count votes.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, analysis is required. Let's be real though. No self-respecting admin is going to rule against a 55-40 majority. AusLondonder (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed unlikely it gets closed as delete, but no consensus is pretty much possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the majority is in part due to blatant canvassing on the part of keep !voters. StAnselm (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that canvassing? Why is it not notifying interested editors? AusLondonder (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's addressing a partisan audience per WP:CAN. Why was a notification of this AfD posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red? It couldn't simply be that the article is a biographical article about a woman; otherwise that talk page would have dozens of notifications every week. In any case, the poster would have a fair idea that people looking at that page would generally be in favour of this article being kept. (As opposed to, say, posted at Wikipedia talk:Notability, where such a partisan audience cannot be assumed.) StAnselm (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nonsense, it is alerting an interested wikiproject. WP:Notability also has a "partisan" (i.e. pro-deletion) audience. Nothing stopped other people from posting elsewhere. Montanabw(talk) 06:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with @Montanabw:. The guideline you cite, StAnselm, is WP:CAN. It explicitly states that "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion. Are you going to apologise and strike your accusations of bad-faith canvassing or not? These accusations seem like nothing less than sour grapes. AusLondonder (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CAN discusses appropriate notifications, and then it outlines when a notification is inappropriate - one of the criteria is when it is directed at a partisan audience. To pretend that the audience at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red is not partisan (on this topic) is ridiculous. It doesn't mean the notification was done in bad faith, but it does mean that the closer ought to take into account the possibility of skewed results. And of course your counter-accusation of sour grapes does nothing to help this discussion. StAnselm (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If these two were correct, directing a wikiproject: "Fewer women's biographies!" to this discussion should also not qualify as canvassing. Good for a laugh, nonsense for an argument. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, {[u|James J. Lambden)). Montanabw(talk) 15:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why I absolutely hate the concept of relisting. It has become habit for admins to just choose to relist in the case of hard decisions, deferring the decision, rather than just making one. Relisting should be used for the cases where there **has not been substantial discussion** and in this case that claim is absurd. Even the policy states you should tend to prefer a no consensus closure if you can't decide in case where there has been substantial discussion. Honestly, requiring this AFD to be open for another week is a case of bureaucracy, and isn't going to change anything except cause people to read more. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, done that. I am sure if I had not relisted and took a decision I already had a bunch of assholes at my talk page explaining me what a piece of shit I am because if was not enough time, the direction of the discussion was changing, and I would better go and jump myself out of the window. I would rather not have that and live longer.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And actually there is nowhere in the policies that a relisted discussion can be closed only after a week. Any administrator can close it any moment (non-admin closure will be reverted in this case I guess). Nobody has to ask me, just to close the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Time to move on. Montanabw(talk) 06:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging could be a good compromise at this point, especially since several users voted so. If we get more reliable sources in the future covering Emily and showing it's not a recentist trend and media buzz, then a standalone article would be warranted. Brandmeistertalk 17:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that relisting was a mistake. Relisting is for cases where insufficient discussion happened, not when no clear outcome can be seen. For such cases, there is no consesnsus verdict which I'm now using for my closure of this discussion. Max Semenik (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2016 (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.
More