Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Watson

Rebecca Watson

If you came here because of http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/index.php?topic=15283.75, 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}}.

This article relies almost entirely on primary sources, falling back on other blogs, podcasts and youtube videos to fill in the gaps. WP:BLP article which has not attracted any significant coverage from reliable third parties (emphasis on the "reliable" part). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE This discussion is attracting votes from the site skepchick.org, where skepchickers are calling wikipedians (specially yours truly) "dicks", "idiot" and "fucktard" and other nasty adjectives. --Damiens.rf 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the thread mentioned above isn't attracting votes from non-wikipedians. It's specifically stated in that thread that people who wouldn't otherwise get involved shouldn't do so. And "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments", no matter who makes them. Ole Eivind (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Talk:Rebecca Watson#Notability offers some reliable third party sources to establish notability. At least one of them is properly cited in the main article itself. But yes, the cites in the article need cleanup.--Boffob (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is an effort by her friends to promote her. Not notable outside her small clique. --Damiens.rf 19:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If she was notable only in her clique she wouldn't be asked to be a speaker at the same conference as Michael A. Stackpole. Also, she's bloody got an article in The Boston Globe. The references definitely need cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A winner of an NPR contest, an invited speaker to a major conference, subject of several major newspaper articles, founder of a notable group, written for a commercial magazine. Clearly notable within the skepticism movement. Mindme (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This here says it all: Talk:Rebecca_Watson#Notability. There are major third-party reliable sources about Rebecca Watson. Articles in The Boston Globe and Skeptical Inquirer, among several other papers/magazines, demonstrate notability beyond doubt. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several dead-tree media sources listed on the talk page (The Boston Globe should be pretty reliable). Watson is easily one of the most well known women within the skeptical movement (which isn't just her small clique). Founder of a notable organization. Co-host of the SGU, a notable podcast which is one of the most popular science podcasts on iTunes. Winner of the PRTQ. Spoken at The New Humanism conferece and the notable The Amaz!ng Meeting. Guest on other notable podcasts. She even has an astroid named after her! References should be cleaned up, but primary sources are here used to show history within a project, other dead-tree sources can show that these projects exist and are notable. Ole Eivind (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed some of the first-party sources with reliable third-party sources now. More can be done, but there can be no doubt Rebecca Watson is notable. Ole Eivind (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability well established via third party sources. If they name a celestial body after you, you're likely to be notable - Jeez. WilyD 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that most of the resources are from blogs and youtube has no bearing on the fact that some of the resources are notable dead tree media and she does have a large following of tens of thousands, not a small clique by any means.--129.19.136.103 (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see the Boston Globe as one of the sources, and there are a couple other non-trivial sources cited. That's enough. (As usual if there is anything really dangerous under BLP, then remove it). This could almost be seen as a test case for demonstrating how outdated Wikipedia's notability standards are with regards to blogs, YouTube, etc. News flash: pretty soon there are likely to be more so-called "trivial" sources than "traditional" sources as more people decide to bypass traditional print in favor of blogs they can do themselves. 23skidoo (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that wont's undermine the value of peer reviewed publications. Don't hold your breath to see FDA accept spammail advertisements as valid sources of drugs information. And until there, we will vehemently deny self-published blogs/youtubos/podcasts as reliable sources. --Damiens.rf 04:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man. Nobody was talking about peer reviewed journals and scientific papers. Only that if you're going to write about a podcast or blog, the podcast/blog itself will obviously be a very important source. We're not even saying it should be the only source (we have several newspaper articles), and we're not using other blogs as sources for what skepchick has done. But, for example, a good source for claiming that skepchick have sold skepdude calendars since 2007 is to link to the actual pages where they sold them. It's kinda obvious. A good source for what a blog post said is to show the actual blog post. We've clearly shown Watson is notable, and first-hand sources are only used to demonstrate the history of her projects, the projects themselves are written about in newspaper articles. Ole Eivind (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what he is trying to say is that things like peer reviewed journals aren't going to switch to blogs and so wikipedia shouldn't either; it's a Slippery slope argument rather than a straw man, its still a fallacy he just didn't word his comment carefully enough to point to what he was really talking about. --Brendan White (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From that AN/I thread I expected actually to need to look up some sources myself, but the Watson article pretty self-evidently passes WP:CREATIVE. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]