Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Maher: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MedalSmeddle (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* Source #3 - https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083193.html - it's a mailing list post. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made. |
* Source #3 - https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083193.html - it's a mailing list post. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made. |
||
* Source #4 - http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/wikipedia-is-still-disrupting-after-15-years-1313225 - it's an interview with Katherine about Wikipedia, not about her. As a PR person, this is her job. PR people are not inherently notable. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made. |
* Source #4 - http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/wikipedia-is-still-disrupting-after-15-years-1313225 - it's an interview with Katherine about Wikipedia, not about her. As a PR person, this is her job. PR people are not inherently notable. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made. |
||
* Source #5 - https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082470.html - it's a mailing list post by Lila Tretikov. It doesn't discuss at all. |
* Source #5 - https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082470.html - it's a mailing list post by Lila Tretikov. It doesn't discuss Katherine at all. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made. |
||
Editors (and long-term editors at that) have, unfortunately, used trivial tit-bits and tried to present Katherine as being notable. She has not won any high-level awards in her field, there are no independent extensive bios by reliable sources out there, need I go on? |
Editors (and long-term editors at that) have, unfortunately, used trivial tit-bits and tried to present Katherine as being notable. She has not won any high-level awards in her field, there are no independent extensive bios by reliable sources out there, need I go on? |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
* '''Comment''' Understandably no one will want to touch this with a ten-foot pole, but to clarify here, I think what you were going for was [[WP:TOOSOON]]? --[[User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker|Mr. Magoo]] ([[User talk:Mr. Magoo and McBarker|talk]]) 01:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
* '''Comment''' Understandably no one will want to touch this with a ten-foot pole, but to clarify here, I think what you were going for was [[WP:TOOSOON]]? --[[User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker|Mr. Magoo]] ([[User talk:Mr. Magoo and McBarker|talk]]) 01:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
**{{u|Mr. Magoo and McBarker}}, nope not at all. Being ED of the WMF, in itself, doesn't even make one notable. And let's not forget she's only an interim ED. It's more [[WP:CRYSTAL]] that people are assuming she will become notable in due course. [[User:MedalSmeddle|MedalSmeddle]] ([[User talk:MedalSmeddle|talk]]) 01:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:39, 12 March 2016
- Katherine Maher (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)
This article fails WP:BIO on almost every level, and is a perfect example of navel gazing in the Wikiverse. There are literally millions of "managers" out there in the world, and only a hand full of them would be notable. For the purposes of this nomination I am using this version of the article.
In determining notability, one needs multiple sources which discuss the person in length.
- Source #1 - http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/02/25/the-new-westphalian-web/ - the information sourced is the byline bio. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made.
- Source #2 - http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/04/15/katherine-maher-joins-foundation-chief-communications-officer/ - it's a blog post/press release by an organization which is not independent of the subject. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made.
- Source #3 - https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083193.html - it's a mailing list post. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made.
- Source #4 - http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/wikipedia-is-still-disrupting-after-15-years-1313225 - it's an interview with Katherine about Wikipedia, not about her. As a PR person, this is her job. PR people are not inherently notable. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made.
- Source #5 - https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082470.html - it's a mailing list post by Lila Tretikov. It doesn't discuss Katherine at all. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made.
Editors (and long-term editors at that) have, unfortunately, used trivial tit-bits and tried to present Katherine as being notable. She has not won any high-level awards in her field, there are no independent extensive bios by reliable sources out there, need I go on?
I would also recommend deletion without redirect due to her non-notability. MedalSmeddle (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Understandably no one will want to touch this with a ten-foot pole, but to clarify here, I think what you were going for was WP:TOOSOON? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mr. Magoo and McBarker, nope not at all. Being ED of the WMF, in itself, doesn't even make one notable. And let's not forget she's only an interim ED. It's more WP:CRYSTAL that people are assuming she will become notable in due course. MedalSmeddle (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)