Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Maher

Katherine Maher

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)
• Delete - Seems WP:Too Soon.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete: Probably too soon. Quis separabit? 03:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete back when Sue Gardner was made ED, I created her article which was also prodded; the difference, Sue had a notable career before joining WMF, Maher does not..'too soon' indeed..--Stemoc 04:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete: Too Soon. For the moment, Interim head of WMF --Nouill (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep -- This article has not been in existence for two days, & is still in development. Give it a month, & if it hasn't been sufficiently improved by that time, then delete. -- llywrch (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: ED of WP inherently notable, coverage will come. This is a clear case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Article on Tretikov was created May 1, 2014, within moments of appointment, it seems; her prior background would most likely not have met GNG at the time, either. Give this a week or two to develop, people. Montanabw^(talk) 19:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Follow up: The most cursory of Google searches reveals her being quoted in her role as CCO in the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. Yes, it was her job, but clearly meets extensive third-party coverage. Plenty of bio info here that can be used for additional searches: https://www.linkedin.com/in/krmaher. Afd this now and we will just need to recreate it in a week or two, so why waste the bandwidth with an AfD that is a total waste of time? Montanabw^(talk) 19:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)