Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Temple-Wood

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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]

• Keep: The standard for GNG is substantial, third-party coverage. While an initial post may have triggered larger coverage, it isn't uncommon for multiple outlets to pick up a story (last I checked, the echo chamber for Donald Trump seems to sound the same on every TV channel). I point out that Lawnchair Larry still has an article, and that was about a truly trivial single event. Montanabw^(talk) 02:29, 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]

• Keep - If the way you described it were the case, I'd probably agree with you, StAnselm. We shouldn't have articles based on a single story that a bunch of other publications ran with, without adding anything themselves (I argued as much at another Wikipedian's AfD, Seedfeeder, although that one was -- astonishingly -- kept). But that does not look to be the case here for two major reasons. First, there's some coverage preceding the recent flurry, and second, multiple sources within that flurry, while obviously inspired by the Wikimedia blog, added content. So, for example, there are quotes in the BBC article and the Washington Post article that do not appear in the Wikimedia blog. That it has a good amount of the same information doesn't mean it's republished or doesn't "count" as separate coverage. Ok, so then there's the separate coverage. The coverage from before this month wouldn't satisfy WP:GNG/WP:BIO on its own, but there's enough of it such that there's no WP:BLP1E kind of argument to be had. See: an interview in Huffington Post from 2014, another Wikimedia blog profile (which I recognize has limited value as a WP:RS on Wikipedia), Medium, and there are somewhat-more-than-a-mentions in the Telegraph, The Atlantic, and NY Times. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:25, 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]

• Keep - GNG established per Rhododendrites. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources provided, I'll admit they're not all perfect but notability is certainly there, It's probably a wise choice to withdraw. –Davey2010^Talk 03:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are a number of reasons that justify keeping it, including the coverage it received as well as the topic itself. This is not a case of WP:RECENTISM like what we are seeing with all the coatracks and soapbox articles popping up because it's election year - here today, forgotten tomorrow. Not so with this BLP, and I'll take it a step further and say we will probably be adding a lot more notable events to the article in the not too distant future. Atsme^📞📧 03:55, 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]

• Keep. She has received significant coverage, period. It does not matter where the coverage is derived from. 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]

• Keep Though the sourcing on the file seems to be predicated on the blog, there are multiple articles, over time, which are enough to satisfy GNG which occurred before the publication of the blog. States News Service 2011, Woodridge Patch 2012, South China Post 2013, New York Times 2014, Huffington Post 2014, Springer 2014, Study Buddies 2015, EBSCO 2015, The Atlantic 2015. She has clearly been sought out by reporters from main stream media outlets before this event for her knowledge of WikiPedia, gender bias and her studies in science have been a repeated thread. Significant coverage is not the length of the article is the the weight and depth of the treatment of the subject at hand. SusunW (talk) 05:53, 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]

• Like many AfDs about notability that I stumble upon, this one began with a concern followed up with a barrage of solid, reliable sources demonstrating, not by quantity, but quality, depth, and breadth, that, to the contrary, yes, the subject is indeed truly timelessly notable and worth mentioning in an encyclopedia.

  The above statement is false. Here’s the truth:

  This AfD began with a perfectly legitimate concern. In response, the original claim to deletion has been battered down by the heavy artillery and volleys of cold, hard evidence, doubly counted by a thousand rubber-stamped nods of approval. And yet it remains undamaged by this cannon fodder, standing as high as any Chinese wall.

  Because it really was just cannon fodder, a paper tiger fluffed up and magnified by the amplifier of the mass media. True, the subject has been covered by many news outlets in March 2016. Rhododendrites was kind enough to give us specific links. But looking closer, all of them are derived from the initial Wikimedia blog post, and none of them have added a noteworthy scrap of new information.

  Okay, that last part isn’t entirely true; The Washington Post adds how she makes herself a cup of tea.

  But for some inexplicable reason, people drive by to rubber-stamp a keep vote, none of them adding a noteworthy scrap of new information to the discussion.Although extra eyes are generally good, laziness and the frailty of humans turns them into mirrors, unhealthy for any discussion. If, as an editor who voted keep, you think that the subject is truly notable, consider this: I conducted my own investigation in tandem with my analysis of the arguments presented in the AfD.

  • First, we discount any article mentioning her achievements during high school. Commendable, but ultimately non-notable. We do not create articles for the high school students who win the International Science Olympiads, Intel ISEF, or Siemens Competition (with several exceptions contingent on actual notability).
  • Putting intext:"emily temple-wood" daterange:245161-2456730 (searching only from March 2000 to March 2014) into Google News yields a grand total of one source featuring the subject in one sentence.
  • Putting intext:"emily temple-wood" daterange:2456730-2457095 (searching only from March 2014 to March 2015) yields a grand total of one source featuring the subject in one sentence.
  • Putting intext:"emily temple-wood" daterange:2457095-2457388 (searching only from March 2015 to 1 Jan 2016) yields a grand total of one source featuring the subject in one sentence.
  • I defer to Rhododendrites for a sample of sources after 1 January 2016.

    All else held equal, this is nothing more than a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. As noble as the subject’s actions may be, notable are they not.

    Just because someone is a Wikipedia editor doesn't mean we should make extra efforts to delete their article, but equally it doesn't mean we should make extra efforts to keep it; the means itself is the ends, in this case. The subject of this article is not notable. Hence, it only follows that the article must be deleted. →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @Keilana: do you actually want this to be kept? sst✈ 07:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am biased, of course, but follow the rationale of Rhododendrites: a woman with an impact covered in excellent reliable publications. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 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]

• Keep. Now that she is featured on today's page of BBC News with a photo and link to the article Female scientist fights harassment with Wikipedia, there is absolutely no doubt Keilana is notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't really a "today's page of BBC News", it's a Blog by Taylor Kate Brown. No such user (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  A WP:NEWSBLOG is not a WP:SPS. sst✈ 11:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that a WP:NEWSBLOG might support WP:V; however, article statements are not being challenged so that issue is moot. We're debating whether it supports WP:N and my answer is "just barely". No such user (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  No such user I can assure you that I found it on BBC news. It's now been there for at least the last 12 hours. If you don't believe me, look here. In my opinion, coverage on possibly the world's most respected news site is clearly in support of notability. Since this morning GMT, dozens of other sites in several languages have reported on the same topic.--Ipigott (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, it is linked in their sidebar titled "Features & Analysis", and the article itself is in their "BBC Trending: What's popular and why" section, which features interesting (but not really "newsworthy", for lack of better word) stories. I grant it's an interesting story, in terms of BLP1E. I don't grant it translates to long-term significance worthy of an article. No such user (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Point of order: It is in fact a blog. Here it is. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's a classic case of WP:BLP1E, with some textbook Wikipedian navel-gazing to boot. Let's just take a look at the article's lead section: Emily Temple-Wood is an American Wikipedia editor... She plans to begin medical school in late 2016. What is notable here? Just looking at the lead, it approaches CSD A7, and, frankly, the situation does not improve much from reading the rest, apart from having a lot of funny giggles like this^{[1][2][3][4][5][8][9][15]}. Let's face it, Wikipedia is under public scrutiny and whichever buzz we do is going to go through press, and a lot of it, because Internet press bytes are equally cheap as the bytes on Wikipedia servers. SSTFlyerUser:Σ above provided some hard evidence about the ephemeral nature of coverage. No such user (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does this meet WP:BLP1E? She has been noted for her actions in multiple events, per the evidence provided by other users above. sst✈ 09:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "Noted"? Let us examine how she was "noted" in your links and what her actions were:

    • [1] The event was a lot of fun and incredibly positive," said Emily Temple-Wood, a junior at Downers Grove North High School who attended last year's event. …
    • 10 Seniors Named to Downers Grove North's Top Two Percent; Meet the students, learn their accomplishments and see where they're going to college. Emily Temple-Wood [...] received second place in the state in extemporaneous speaking, 19th in the nation in international extemporaneous speaking, is a National Merit Finalist and National AP Scholar. She’s been a member of the speech team and marching band...
    • [2] "There are only 1,500 articles about women scientists in Wikipedia. We are missing at least half of them," said Emily Temple-Wood, a 19-year-old student from Loyola University in Chicago. She has been writing about female scientists on Wikipedia since middle school.
    • [3] “There is a sense that if it is not on Wikipedia, then it doesn’t exist,” said Emily Temple-Wood, a 19-year-old molecular biology major at Loyola University of Chicago, who as a volunteer editor is a driving force in increasing the number of female scientists represented on Wikipedia. She has organized meetings at museums and libraries
    • [4] I concede that this is a full-length piece in HuffPo about Emily, however: HuffPost tech The Blog [...] by Netha Hussain; Medical student, blogger, Wikipedian.

    etc. etc. Passing mentions, routine coverage, blogs, most of that about Wikipedia... Is that the kind of coverage we're supposed to base our concept of notability? No such user (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • • See WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The BBC article, for example, is unarguably a full-length piece on the topic. sst✈ 10:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I don't see why NEXIST is relevant in this case. I have already conducted a data-driven analysis of sources that exist on the internet. Perhaps you'd like to elucidate, @SSTflyer:. →Σσς. (Sigma) 17:57, 14 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]

• Delete. I feel that a higher bar for notability should be applied to articles about Wikipedia itself, such as bios of Wikipedia editors or admins. A person who is essentially only noteworthy for editing/administrating Wikipedia should not have an article just because that editing/administrating has received media attention. Journalists have, from time to time, profiled individual Wikipedia editors or admins; I don't think that kind of coverage should be enough by itself for notability. SJK (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that a higher bar for notability should be applied to articles about Wikipedia itself What policy or guideline supports this? sst✈ 09:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find a policy or guideline which explicitly states that, but I believe there should be one. Navelgazing ought to be avoided (to me at least, it feels cringeworthy, it makes Wikipedia feel like a non-serious encyclopaedia – would Britannica add an article on one of its contributors just because they had received a short burst of media coverage about their contributions to Britannica?), and having a higher bar for notability for Wikipedia-related articles is a good way to avoid navelgazing. Policies/guidelines evolve in response to specific cases (including this one). SJK (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article certainly meets all GNG guidelines since she has received significant mainstream news coverage. Z105space (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She passes GNG as shown above. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Megalibrarygirl: Sorry, but I can't see exactly why you think it passes GNG. Could you elucidate for me, especially in face of the cold, hard data as I mentioned above? Thanks, →Σσς. (Sigma) 17:57, 14 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]

• Leaning delete, as it's seems to be a BLP1E case. More importantly, though... would the subject even want this article written about them? Emily is not a "public figure", and I'd be surprised if she wanted to be portrayed as such. Having a Wikipedia article about yourself is a double-edged sword! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 13:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per No such user, SJK and WP:BLP1E. The coverage is ephemeral. The sources do not show the notability of Temple-Wood herself, they just show the notability of Wikipedia. Canaricarnivore (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Wikipedia editing should be promoted in all possible and "acceptable" ways and this is one of the ways that also corresponds to article writing standards. --ssr (talk) 16:37, 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]

• Comment: Eh, I kind of wish this hadn't been created. There is a BLP1E argument that can be batted around, but my greater concern is whether we really want an article on her at this time. It will be vandalized regularly. SJK makes a valid point that "I feel that a higher bar for notability should be applied to articles about Wikipedia itself, such as bios of Wikipedia editors or admin" -- this will only work if there is a consensus of course. I don't want articles on "notable" editors like Eric Corbett either. Should the subject be disinclined to have an article at this time, I would also take that into account (as I typically do in borderline BLP cases of "new found" popularity).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:37, 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]

• Keep Unless the editor specifically requests deletion (which I would support out of courtesy) I feel this bio meets the standards set at WP:GNG. However, I feel the nominator, User:StAnselm displayed a serious error of judgement in nominating this article at the moment. Such a pointy nomination serves to do nothing other than confirm the entrenched sexism of the project to the watching media and public. AusLondonder (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you elucidate as to why questioning the subject's notability constitutes "pointy [...] entrenched sexism"? →Σσς. (Sigma) 19:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the sources demonstrate notability. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @White Arabian Filly: That's great, but why do you think so? 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]

• 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]

• Keep (1) the major sources specifically cover her not Wikipedia. (2) the major sources do have factual information that was not in the Wikimedia Blog, indicating, among other things, independent verification. (3) there are enough reliable sources with in-depth coverage to meet WP:NOTEBLP. (4) This is not the case of WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E, this is continuous endeavor in a particular field. Kudos to Rhododendrites for detailed explanation and additional sources. --Bejnar (talk) 20:12, 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]

• Keep (actually Delete for pointy reasons discussed.) Article captures the essence of why the Gender Gap is contrived nonsense. Passes for notable female scientist. Well done. --DHeyward (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DHeyward (talk · contribs), I'm not sure I fully follow the point you are making. However, if you are saying that the creation of this article says anything significant about the gender gap on Wikipedia, then I don't think that makes much sense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 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]

• Weak delete. "Weak" because I expect Ms. T-W to attain notability in the future even if she hasn't yet attained it by today, and because she herself doesn't object to the article's existence (a factor that I do accord some, though not dispositive, weight). "Delete" because a question I ask myself in judging notability for this sort of article is "if this person, hypothetically (and in this case I expect counterfactually) were never to do anything newsworthy again, in five years would anyone have a reason to be searching for information about her?" It's hard to dispute that the answer, for better or worse, is no. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at WP:NTEMP. sst✈ 05:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please rebut my arguments, if you care to, with thoughts and words rather than marginally apposite acronyms. True notability may be permanent, but a longer-term perspective is often warranted in borderline cases, especially where BLPs are concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with no disrespect intended to my colleague who is way cooler than me ;) Emily has done some fantastic work, both in creating content herself and in raising awareness of systemic bias to motivate others to create content. This "one article per harassing email" idea is creative online news catnip, I've probably retweeted it or something already, but... come on now guys, the coverage is classic BLP1E and if the article had nothing to do with Wikipedia we wouldn't be arguing the point. And without doubting the good intentions of the article's author, creating articles for individual Wikipedians whose Wikipedia activities occasionally attract news attention but who are not otherwise notable is a bad precedent, even if in this case the subject doesn't object. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe the sources are reliable. Looking through, there is enough info to make an article Horsegeek^(talk) 00:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Horsegeek[reply]
• Delete Ms. Temple-Wood is doing fantastic work expanding the coverage of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. But the arguments of Sigma, Newyorkbrad and Opabinia regalis are spot on in my opinion. The number of sources used in the article (are 4 separate references necessary to confirm Ms. Temple-Wood has been accepted into medical school?) does not help overcome the basic flaw of failing the BLP1E criterion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:DHeyward. But she is an undoubtably talented editor, competent arb com member, and valued community member.Mr Ernie (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• To all commentators who think this is a WP:BLP1E case: undoubtedly she has received a lot of coverage for her "one article per harassing email" plan, but that is not the only thing that makes her notable. She has also been noted for having created large numbers of articles on Wikipedia, and the "4,400 female scientists" figure. Therefore, WP:BLP1E does not apply. sst✈ 04:51, 15 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]

• Keep She has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish her own notability, with regards to having an article on this encyclopedia.The Cross Bearer (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Wikipedia community per WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Emily does a good job, but as the policies state, merely being verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion. WP:BASIC and WP:GNG emphasize that in case of multiple coverage notability is still presumed, not guaranteed. Brandmeister^talk 12:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She has recieved significant coverage from reliable sources, and her article should be kept for that reason. Ethanlu121 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Firstly, I think the nomination statement is wrong: the depth, quality, and variety of reliable publications covering the subject is well over the threshold for WP:GNG. But, they are all very recent and all cover the same basic information, so I don't think they yet pass the "enduring notability" test of WP:NOTNEWS and the "more than one thing" test of WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: per Opabinia regalis and No such user. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it can also be argued that WP:BLP1E does not apply because the person is not a low-profile individual. sst✈ 05:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting WP:LPI: Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Emily Temple-Wood has actively sought out media attention. Another reason why WP:BLP1E does not apply. sst✈ 05:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What on earth makes you say that she has "actively sought out media attention"? StAnselm (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And looking at the wording of WP:LPI, it says Has given one or more scheduled interviews... as a "media personality"... a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator. Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional. May ostensibly represent an employer or other group, but is clearly self-representing as well. I think you're being quite unfair to Temple-Wood, here. StAnselm (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment (Note: I am article creator) I think Temple-Wood is not a low-profile individual as she seems to have been interviewed by multiple media outlets with her consent, [5] [6] and so has done so as a "media personality"--which in this case can also mean ""public face" or "big name"" as WP:LPI notes. Therefore, in my opinion, BLP1E does not seem to apply here. Everymorning (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Classic WP:BLP1E, bordering on self-promotion. Fails GNG, as is readily apparent in the lede. Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Since she never actually edited the article, it can not be self-promotion.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Promotion by others then, presumably. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  This is possible, I am not a mind-reader, but definitely not self-promotion.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple third-party sources to prove notability exist, as shown above. I'm not buying the BLP1E claims; she's been getting coverage for her work for some time now, and I wouldn't even say all the recent coverage is focused on a singular event per se. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Slippery slope. Doubtless many editors can/will be mentioned in the media, Blofeld, Eric, &c, but it's all just navel gazing and feels like a ghastly in-joke. Stop it at once before the flood gates open and the project swallows itself in some hideous post-modern bout of self-referentiality. Ericoides (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Eric Corbett has an article already :). No such user (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I assume that was a tongue-in-cheek comment, but to avoid any possible confusion I want to clarify that that article is about a different Eric Corbett, not the Wikipedia editor. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sails past WP:GNG with ease. The delete arguments here seem to have a lot more to do with ideology than Wikipedia policy; if a basketball player had this depth of coverage this nomination would never have happened. The BLP1E arguments are nonsense: she is "notable for one event" in the same way that a professional basketball player is "notable for one event". It does not target people who are primarily notable for one thing, which would strike most of Wikipedia's biographies. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:38, 16 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]

• If there was a star player for Ohio State with RS coverage, we would have an article on them. This is the same thing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:52, 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]

• Delete. Keeping this would set the bar so low as to make Wikipedia's deletion processes meaningless, since virtually all the puff-pieces on lower-league footballers, local businesses and so on which we routinely delete have just as much coverage in reliable sources. In practice, "mention in multiple reliable sources" has never actually been Wikipedia's test of notability, whatever Wikipedia:Notability (which is not and never has been a policy page) says to the contrary; if that were the case, we'd have biographies of every reality TV contestant, every winner of any award, anyone who ever stood for public office… ‑ Iridescent 08:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Iridescent. Yes, that's right, the notability bar IS so low that all those "non-encyclopedic" people do meet the GNG, and DO get articles if someone cares to write them. Does that mean pop-culture gets overrepresented? Absolutely: the sources are plentiful and easily accessible, unlike things found only in dead-tree books, which functionally means almost anything before 1990, but that IS the notability rulebook under which AfDs have been decided, like it or not. Likewise, the WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E arguments are completely off base: What "event" is the subject associated with? A "campaign" to create articles on women scientists is not an event by any reasonable definition of the word: an event cannot readily be logically broken down further into separate events, and each creation of an article is a separate event. Further, she's not low profile, and so thoroughly fails the middle prong of the three-point WP:BLP1E test. Jclemens (talk) 09:18, 17 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]

• Conflicted Delete. To be honest, feel free to dismiss my !vote as I'll state here that I am a wiki-friend of Em's. Frankly I was so glad to see an article about her work on wiki - and I have no doubt that she will achieve proper notability in time. Still - notability about writing wiki articles seems a bit circular and a touch of like looking for lint via Omphaloskepsis. — Ched :  ?  11:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• In the case of a marginally notable BLP subject, leave it up to the subject to decide. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while it is quite interesting, it is essentially an exercise in navel-gazing. Shritwod (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Opabinia regalis. BethNaught (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as meeting GNG, but probably desperately needing a rewrite. As written I believe the article does a disservice to its subject by strongly resembling a "who's who" entry. I could also support draftifying while a rewrite takes place. Although I concur that we need to take great care about accepting articles about our own, Emily Temple-Wood stands out among us in terms of the attention she has received. For those concerned about that matter more generally, I would remind them that AfD isn't the place to set that kind of precedent... it's not an appellate court. An RfC can, and probably should, be held to flesh out how we approach assessing notability for Wikipedia editors as article subjects (and more generally, for assessing notability when the coverage deals with, or is stimulated by Wikipedia activity itself, especially AfDs). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the number of Reliable Sources available is certainly enough to pass the GNG. We agree it's quite a low bar, but Temple-Wood is certainly above it. The article doesn't seem too badly written to me, but even if it were atrociously written, that would still not be a matter for AfD. Keep is the only option allowed by policy here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it is not a question of an event, as some have suggested, but of what she stands for. For instance today The Guardian placed a major article on Wikipedia and gender on this woman's work. Also without this page, I would not have been able to research the rest of the story having read about it. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact this navel-gazing silliness will be kept is strong evidence of the worthlessness of Wikipedia's BLP policies. Townlake (talk) 05:01, 20 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]

• Keep. Very clearly passes WP:GNG, with multiple WP:RS available, and that's all that we need care about. -- The Anome (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Let's be clear, there's a great amount of politics here. But, meaning no disrespect to the subject as a person, and with high respect for the topic of social activism in general: "Works "Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month". The Signpost. February 2016." - that's the essence of navel-gazing. This is before even considering the negatives of having a Wikipedia biography on a marginally notable person who is engaged in a topic which makes them a target for personal abuse. When both of those two factors are considered in combination, there's no question in my mind that this biography should be deleted. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There has been coverage in many non-English media also. Greek Legend (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like an advertisement, she may have been mentioned by some specific media but this is not a sufficient reason to have a Wikipedia article dedicated to. Berti118 (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Checkuser note: I have blocked this account as a sock of Rolandi+. Courcelles (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rescope as Wikipedia Gender Gap Wikipedia gender issues have evident notability and are thinly covered at Wikipedia. This individuals effort's seem to be a subsidiary topic, and its not clear that she will have enduring notability as per Wikipedia:Notability#Notable_topics_have_attracted_attention_over_a_sufficiently_significant_period_of_time and WP:BLP1E. Her coverage would naturally be discussed in a page about the gender gap, however. Rhoark (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm surprised there is no List of Wikipedia people. Perhaps such a list could be created incorporating this and other cases of borderline notability. StAnselm (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• While there is no List of Wikipedia people, there is, FWIW, a Category:Wikipedia people, which only has 26 members. Everymorning (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Gender bias on Wikipedia. This solution seems like a win across the board. The gender bias article is sorely in need of an update, and Temple-Wood's activities are a natural fit for an updated version. The Emily Temple-Wood article is low-quality and does a disservice to her laudable work with female scientists, as the article's existence makes it appear this site has no bar for inclusion above "mentioned on two websites." Failing a merge, I would vote to delete per BLP1E for reasons I've already stated above. I would also encourage this RFA AFD to be closed by a three-admin crew, similar to what was recently done with Involuntary celibacy (4th nom). Townlake (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You said "RFA", Townlake, but I assume you meant AFD, no? Everymorning (talk) 02:04, 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]

• Comment This doesn't apply to everyone. If it does not apply to you then don't worry. The reality is, though, sadly, that many in the overwhelmingly male editing community seem to resent and in many ways fear, strong women. Is Joseph Lambert Eustace really a more notable person? What about Richard Verney? Bernard Castagnède? No, according to reality. I think jealousy has been a part of this discussion as well. Editors are being asked to admit another editor has achieved more than them. Another editor has created so many worthwhile pages while others spend their time bitching here about navel-gazing and suggest we are somehow obliged to follow the trashy elements of the media in its sexism. This AfD has exposed some of the worst elements of this project directly to the public. It's not pretty. AusLondonder (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a nap, dude. Townlake (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, thanks for that thoughtful, incisive and constructive contribution, "dude". AusLondonder (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ask Emily what she wants or if we have nothing to go on Delete. This is a classic WP:BLP1E case. Em is a low profile individual who has been the subject to a burst of media coverage. We should adopt the position of least harm and only keep the article if we get an affirmation that she would like the article kept. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as simply not quite solid enough for an acceptable Wikipedia article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with an analysis of the sources in [this version]:
  1. Wikipedia diff - no comment required
  2. Wikimedia Blog - primary source
  3. New York Magazine - coverage of the female scientist project, very short, no analysis
  4. Wikimedia Blog - not independent source
  5. Bustle - coverage of same thing as #3
  6. Washington Post - same as #3 and #5 again
  7. Le Huffington Post - same event again
  8. Daily Herald - trivial/routine coverage of spelling bee
  9. The Sun - trivial/routine coverage of spelling bee
  10. ABC Chicago - trivial/routine coverage of spelling bee
  11. South China Morning Post - single quote, trivial/passing mention
  12. The Scientist - more coverage of same single event as earlier sources
  13. Jezebel - same single event coverage again
  14. Wikimedia Blog - not independent source
  15. New York Times - two quotes, trivial/passing mention
  16. The Atlantic - two quotes, trivial/passing mentions
  17. Huffington Post - same single event coverage again, essentially the same article as the French HuffPo source above
  18. El Diario - coverage of same single event again
  19. 7sur7 - same single event again
  20. Buzzfeed - same single event again, and also rather trivial
  21. Wikimedia DC - not independent
  22. Wikimedia - not independent

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 ^talk_edits 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 ^talk_edits 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 ^talk_edits 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]

• Don't care: I think we're wasting rather a lot of time discussing someone who - for all the right reasons - is carefully adding useful stuff to this encyclopedia. If it was me, I wouldn't want a page in the very encyclopedia on which I'm working, because that looks horribly like an form of vanity publication. At best, ask her whether she wants a page. I strongly suspect she wouldn't and just wants to get on with the rest of her life and be known in the future for the notable things she has yet to achieve. JMWt (talk) 10:37, 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]

• Merge to Gender bias on Wikipedia or alternatively Delete. with no disrespect to the article's subject, after reading the linked articles I don't feel that notability has been established. If every detail of this story was the same, but it was about, say, RationalWiki, or IndyMedia, we wouldn't regard the subject as notable. The article seems to make sense only through the lens of this community's introspection.Thparkth (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gender bias on Wikipedia. The gender bias topic is notable and is the reason for the news coverage. Emily herself at this point is not notable and is not the reason for the coverage. TheBlinkster (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Jclemens and Chiswick Chap on the analysis of notability. If this were not about Wikipedia, I expect there would be much less controversy about her notability. I recognize there has been a long tradition of reticence about acknowledging the notability of Wikipedia-related topics, and while I acknowledge the good faith reasons for that reticence, ultimately I think it is misplaced: for good and ill, Wikipedia matters enough now that we shouldn't be going out of our way to remove content relevant to how it is read and understood. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the comments by Opabinia regalis. RGloucester — ☎ 01:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are several sound arguments for keeping this article that have been identified by other editors in this discussion, and I hope that whomever closes this discussion will seriously consider the issues related to systematic biases in the coverage of women in popular media, academia, and the Wikipedia community. However, I would like to present a different argument, which I don't think has been expressed yet in this discussion. Specifically, I would like to discuss the "legislative history" of our notability guideline. When the rules for notability were first drafted, there was considerable debate about how the guideline should be defined, and whether the guideline should exist at all. However, many prominent editors argued that significant coverage in reliable sources was necessary to substantiate the verifiability of claims in an article. For example, Jimbo Wales wrote in 2004: "It isn't the lack of fame that makes the page objectionable, it's the lack of verifiability. It's just someone's random musings about a private matter, and there's no way for external confirmation or disconfirmation. Therefore, it isn't encyclopedic." (citing Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 4, emphasis in original). Therefore, when discussing whether a subject passes WP:GNG, it is important for us to consider whether there is sufficient independent coverage in secondary sources to verify the accuracy of the information in the Wikipedia article. In this case, there are ample sources to substantiate the accuracy of the information presented in this article. Indeed, Emily Temple-Wood is the subject of a significant number of articles from major news sources. For those reasons, I think we should not delete this article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Opabina regalis and others. Have we set the bar so low for inclusion? And I'm not saying that Emily is not a nice or good person, but so far the notability is not there. And based on the sources and what is there for inclusion, if she rides in a taxi and gives a bad tip, that would be notable for a controversy section. I don't know if we need to set a different bar for Wikipedians, because that is not necessarily fair to a Wikipedian, but as of now, I don't think this article is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BLP1E is quite easy to spot. Endorse navel-gazing comments above as well as those by Opabinia regalis Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP1E and Opabinia regalis. And this sort of navel-gazing does no-one here any favours - it's a Warhol moment. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Events such as shootings or bombings are easy to identify. If per Opabinia regalis' interpretation is correct and BLP1E applies, what is the event? What we are dealing with here is not an event but a process, which is a type of social movement that persists in time. Once the ontology of notability is worked out, it is clear the BLP1E does not apply but WP:GNG does. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Conflicted Delete Clearly she is notable within Wikipedia, but nothing outside of Wikipedia is really given for an independent claim of notability. WP:GNG does not appear to consider "internal notability" as making anyone "notable' for our outside users. Perhaps "projectspace" could be a home for "biographies of Wikipedians" but mainspace is likely not utile to most outside users. And she might still become notable otherwise - so this is in no way a bar to an article at that time. Collect (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. While I have concerns that we not treat her article differently due to the 'incestuous' context, there is enough there about her and the related subjects implicit in her effort, so that WP:Notability is established. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I do think that the BLP1E issue applies here, and I also feel that Wikipedia comes off looking self-promotional and self-congratulatory if we keep the page. (No objection to keeping the editor, of course!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking back again, I agree with the suggestions to merge to Gender bias on Wikipedia. But I really do think BLP1E applies here in ways that are nothing like Jimbo Wales. She got multiple news coverages for her single decision to create a page about female scientists for every harassing email. That's basically one event. If she were to become noted outside Wiki-world for criticizing gender issues here over time – repeated noted occurrences of criticizing gender problems – then she would pass GNG. But she really has been noted only for one criticism at one time. There are sometimes news reports of events like edit-a-thons, and those often quote specific editors by name. But we wouldn't say that an editor was notable because more than one news source wrote about a single edit-a-thon. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gender bias on Wikipedia. Per Townlake. On the subject of notability, I'm troubled by the relatively short duration of coverage, as discussed by Sigma and David Eppstein. I do not think that there's a sufficiently long baseline of coverage to establish notability. If the article isn't merged, then I'd prefer that it be deleted, subject to the understanding that it may be recreated once Ms. Temple-Wood's notability becomes more clearly established. Astro4686 (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Gender bias on Wikipedia. Per Townlake. After thinking long and hard, I've come to the conclusion that for now, pending further developments, this is the solution that serves everyone – the project (including its gender issue), the public and Keilana herself – best. (And incidentally, had we done this for Sarah Stierch a few years ago, everybody's life would have been a lot easier.) --Andreas JN466 20:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (edit conflict) WP:BLP1E is irrelevant here, just as it would be irrelevant to the notability of a writer whose notability depends on having written a single important book, or an athlete whose notability depends on having broken a single world record. It’s quite clear that numerous newspapers independently interviewed and wrote about the subject, who is notable for a single project. I understand that the proposer had gained the impression that all the articles were essentially reprints, but they are not, and the nomination ought to have been withdrawn once that became clear. With regard to not having articles about Wikipedians, that horse left the stable long ago; Jimmy Wales is notable only for Wikipedia, and nobody’s AfDing Jimbo. More to the point, we try our best to exclude articles about Wikipedia’s critics. That’s the real agenda here, but when Wikipedia's flaws attract widespread attention, this sort of ruckus makes the project appear petty and childish. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:44, 22 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]

• Delete no more notable than hundreds of other editors, nothing to do with gender or politics. I don't think Wikipedia should have articles on editors unless they are notable in some other sphere. J3Mrs (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject of substantive coverage in multiple, independent, published sources of presumed reliability. We're not here to debate whether there should be an article on this subject, as many of the Delete commenters are arguing, only whether this subject meets GNG. This biography does. Carrite (talk) 17:57, 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

• I'm not sure if this is a good place for a wider debate about articles on Wikipedians notable for being Wikipedians, but I suppose it's good as any. First, I'd like to thank Opabinia regalis for so succinctly and gracefully (as usual) expressing my thoughts: creating articles for individual Wikipedians whose Wikipedia activities occasionally attract news attention but who are not otherwise notable is a bad precedent, even if in this case the subject doesn't object. To check out the current practice I perused Category:Wikipedia people, and the only examples parallel to Emily's one (Wikipedians notable only for being Wikipedians) are Justin Knapp and Simon Pulsifer, both heavily afd-ed (and once deleted in case of Knapp) – check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer (5th nomination) and all discussions linked therein.
  Pulsifer is "blessed" with a short Time article [7], which was used as the crucial argument for keeping the article; only, in that same piece titled "Power To The People", describing the phenomenon of "online activism", were also featured Korean citizen journalist Kim Hye Won, software developer Blake Ross, Facebooker Megan Gill, blogger Lee Kelley (blogger), whistleblogger Lane Hudson, Pakistani photographer Ali Khurshid, Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth, critic Harriet Klausner and few others, of very similar background. Of those, only Blake Ross and Harriet Klausner have a Wikipedia article, both with long-term activity and sustained media coverage.
  In the spirit of Opabinia's words, I think we ought to rethink our interpretation of WP:GNG in cases where individuals were used as case studies for a wider phenomenon. Are those Time and BBC articles really about Pulsifer and Temple-Wood, respectively, or about phenomenons of "wikipediholism" and "gender gap on Wikipedia"? I'm afraid that we're setting a very low bar for BLPs, pronouncing notability whenever there is a short burst of coverage in RS. My interpretation is that WP:BLP1E and WP:1E are raise that bar much higher than it seems to be a majority interpretation (although, I must notice that several keep !voters do not even attempt to address the BLP1E concerns). No such user (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Since this section is here, another meta-question. WP:BLP1E doesn't say what the delete !voters above thinks it says. Every single one of them has offered a non-policy-or-guideline-based opinion that doesn't coincide with what our relevant yet cited inappropriately guideline has said for, oh, around a decade or so. There are several possible modifications to BLP1E:

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

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

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. Brandmeister^talk 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.