Wiki How:Articles for deletion/Sarah Stierch

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 keep. The quality of this debate was very high, with almost all of the comments being based in the deletion policy. A few editors made comments that didn't address the sources available, and I have discounted those. The remaining comments were split between recommending keeping the article because of the coverage in multiple sources, and between recommending deletion because of a perceived lack of depth in that coverage. I can't see any reason to discount any of these opinions, and so given there were almost twice as many "keep" comments as "deletes" I am closing this discussion as a weak consensus to keep. In my decision I have also taken into account the fact that according to the subject more sources will likely be appearing in the near future. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Stierch

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I really like Sarah and what she does; but didn't we agree long ago that being well-known as a Wikipedian is not genuinely notable, unless the subject passes WP:BIO with entirely non-Wikimedia sources. Sorry, Sarah and Valerie: I feel really bad to have to raise this question. Orange Mike | Talk 00:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the rule about "being well-known as a Wikipedian" being insufficient for notability. I'm not clear on how your first sentence applies to this article, though, since no part of the article is about being "well-known as a Wikipedian." The arguments for notability of the subject are based on specific paid positions which happen to be related to Wikipedia, such as first Wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian. The first of anything at the Smithsonian seems notable to me, and to many reliable third-party sources judging by the press reaction. Stierch's work on the gender gap is also judged notable by many reliable third-party sources. Could you be specific about which elements of the article fall under the exception of "well-known Wikipedian?" Catavar (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several non-Wikimedia sources available about Stierch. Perhaps the best is the article in The Independent, which has six paragraphs about Stierch, including biographical details. There is also coverage in the Archives of American Art, Slate, the Smithsonian and TechRepublic. Disclosure: I have met Sarah and like her. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sarah has multiple independent works covering her, including the Smithsonian Magazine, TechRepublic, and other ones. She may not have saved the world or created world peace (yet), but that does not mean that she isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For notability to be established on the project, we require that the individual be a subject of multiple published secondary sources that are intellectual independent of each other and the subject. I would also note that the depth of the coverage received by the subject is not substantial. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per Nearly Headless Nick. She's a super person, but isn't really independently notable, per WP:NN - Alison ^❤ 03:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kevin Rutherford. Criteria for WP:CREATIVE also apply--when people want to probe Wikipedia's gender gap, Sarah is the person they seek and cite. Disclosure: I also know and like Sarah as well as Orange Mike, but clearly Sarah is notable for advancing the idea that Wikipedia needs to be more inclusive of women as editors and subjects of articles. --Jgmikulay (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nick. Sarah 04:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure Sarah will be notable some day, but today is not that day. For people who are active in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia universe we should be extra strict to prevent the idea that we promote "our own". Multichill (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough reliable sources on her (mentioned in Independent and Slate, looking at article's sources, for example), even discounting WMF blogs and such (but I think they are reliable, too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Or else delete all the articles (male as well as female) at Category:Wikimedia_Foundation that have fewer (or even far fewer) refs. CarolMooreDC 12:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's remember not to use an "other stuff exists" argument (e.g. the other Wikipedia Foundation category members) and focus on the notability of of the subject alone. I like this measure of notability. I'll come back and !vote after I take a look at the quantity and more importantly quality of the sources used. I suspect with Ms. Stierch, it's not a case of utter non-notability, but a case of WP:TOOSOON. COI statement: I like Sarah, I love what she's doing with the gender gap (I'm female) and she's even given me a virtual beer or two. Valfontis (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is just an essay and therefore we should feel free to use it in situations where comparisons very clearly are highly relevant.

Moreover, didn't the nominator write: didn't we agree long ago that being well-known as a Wikipedian is not genuinely notable, unless the subject passes WP:BIO with entirely non-Wikimedia sources Under that theory even more Wikipedia Foundation category members' articles should be Afd'd. (Also: to quote below "Declaration: I've met, worked and socialised with Sarah" however my interest is more consistency than anything personal regarding Sarah, plus I'm an anti-deletionist in general.) CarolMooreDC 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you on some levels, but I haven't found another Wikimedia Foundation category bio that justifies deletion (though I haven't checked them all); they tend to establish notability much better than this one. If you can give examples, then we can argue WP:OTHERSTUFF, but for now let's focus on this one. —Rutebega (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agreeing delete here. The coverage of her isn't really extensive enough to justify an article. I agree about the other WMF-related people articles as well, FWIW, but that isn't the point of this discussion... The Land (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm flattered anyone would think of writing an article about me. On the flipside, I also was told I passed GNG a while ago ;) So, if anyone wants a list of reliable press coverage I have been, well, maintaining since the early 2000's let me know. I also think it's weird - despite some of the poor sources used, no one has worked to improve the article, and frankly anything categorized as being from non-Wikimedia, non-Smithsonian is reliable. I mean shit, I've been interviewed on Freakonomics, the ABC News (Australia), and the CBC. (The first which will be released in a couple of weeks) Anyway, I don't see how I'm any different than Andrew Lih aside from him publishing a book. SarahStierch (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have a list of interviews and other coverage, you might post it (or highlights; don't want to overload the servers ;-) ) to the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done At least I can say I went down fighting. Anyone who knows me know I never stop :) SarahStierch (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no offense meant to Sarah, who is a lovely person that I wish I could have spoken to at Wikimania last year, but I don't really see what makes her notable. I can't honestly work out what makes her pass GNG - maybe those sources will help, though, so I'll await those. And indeed an article on Liam Wyatt, who if anything is more deserving of an article than Sarah is. Again, no offence meant, I'm sure she's a lovely and hardworking person. — foxj 18:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Abundant reliable sources. Declaration: I've met, worked and socialised with Sarah. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. Passes GNG via independent coverage, and (if it matters) it's coverage of publicly visible work, not "inside" Wikipedia stuff. --Arxiloxos (talk)
Keep - we shouldn't have an article on someone just because they have a high profile within Wikimedia, but equally we shouldn't enforce a higher standard for notability because the subject happens to be a Wikimedian. The combination of sources passess WP:GNG/WP:BIO. KTC (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As is, the article includes a lot about Sarah's role within WMF, and I don't think that establishes much notability. However, I sense (partly from her comment above) that she has more notability than has been referenced in the article, so the best thing to do is improve instead of delete. —Rutebega (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think she squeaks by on coverage, though the article isn't particularly strong (just look at the sentence I just removed--and more work needs to be done). Let's not add a list of media appearances to the article, please. I found another mention of her report here, suggesting that she is well-known enough to pass the bar. Disclosure, in line with others here: Sarah hasn't met me yet, but I'm a lovely person. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - couldn't see where she's mentioned here[1], ref 7 isn't from the New York Times, but a far less reliable blog site. I'm confused as to how a Smithsonian source is a reliable one when she's directly connected. That said, the Independent article has a decent amount of coverage, as does the Tech Republic's interview. I'd go Weak Keep based on those two sources and the accumulation of the others. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have good points that deserve explanation. I included the Smithsonian source only to establish a minor point of fact: it stated outright that Stierch was the first Wikipedian-in-residence at the entire Smithsonian. All third-party sources (most already included in the article) I could find only stated that she was the first at each of the two sub-units. I figured that the Smithsonian reference could be used for a minor factual point like that, but if it is inappropriate, it can be deleted without affecting notability since the appointments are covered by non-Smithsonian sources. The NY Times reference was intended to document the notability of the gender gap, not Stierch's personal involvement in it. I'd appreciate any improvements on the article in any form! Catavar (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm fairly allergic to self-promotion and navel-gazing, but we do a disservice to notable Wikipedians if we do not apply the same notability standards as we would in any other case. In this case, the subject meets WP:BIO through in depth coverage in a variety of sources. [2][3][4][5] Article expanders: please don't forget to mention that DJ Sarah Vain brought Fugazi to Indianapolis [6] and spun for the Naptown Roller Girls [7]. Also, if somebody would please start an article for Liam Wyatt. Disclosure: I have received a barnstar from Sarah. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 23:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I'd like to say how delighted I am in the quality of the discussion here, on the sensitive topic of one of our own (albeit one of our own who seems to have no enemies in the project, as opposed to some of us more prickly types who have gotten on many folks' nerves and/or stepped on their toes). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly, and surprisingly, reliable. She has a variety multiple owned databases, and yet why all of a sudden delete if there is a grudge on her, and yet all the detailed references are shown as a way of inclusion of information to nobility, and yet already to deletion? Why not just delete articles Jacob Severin, or Joey Chestnut, or Takeru Kobayashi, from an eating contest due to the so much controversy called "notability". ""It's all there, in black and white, clear as crystal!" as a former wiseman once said. It has so far been efficient among WP:GNG/WP:BIO, WP:CITE, and WP:RS.--GoShow (............................) 19:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to her and Liam, the whole "Wikipedian in Residence" thing has really taken off. I noticed there is no "Wikipedian in Residence" article, which should probably be written (and that will be another can of beans), but as the first in the US, she is notable. This phenomenon is gaining ground not just with GLAM's, but also for organizations such as WHO and others whose mission is to spread knowledge worldwide. Wikipedia is very efficient at this. An article on Sarah is a fairly innocent and straightforward example of someone doing this collaboratively with a recognized institution in the US (I am referring here to her work for the Smithsonian). Jane (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately I cannot see anything in this article that proves notability. Not as DJane (1 of 30 under 30 in the Pittsburgh area), not as museum curator. Work within Wikipedia should not be considered as creating notability for an article. No offense meant and all the work she does should be honored ... but not with an article here. --Gereon K. (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good Job as Residence with a lot of public outreach. I don't like a lot of her Community Fellow work - but she does someting. And also here - with a lot of outreach. And I would not have a cause to argue with her in some points, the people outside and inside the Wikimedia projects would hear on what she says. So she's more important than much people here would really belive. And our Job is to collect this knowledge. Article is well written, NPV seems to be OK. So we have to keep the article. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has multiple sources covering her in detail, being a Wikipedian and an admin is not a reason for deletion (otherwise please AFD Jimbo Wales). Disclosure: I've worked with Sarah on Signpost articles twice and I voted in her RFA (she may have voted in mine, I forget) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has been covered by WP:RS before, and also passes WP:GNG. Zappa O Mati 10:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm flattered by all the people mentioning my name as a sort of comparison/precedent, but I should note by way of bringing some historical context that a biography article about me was indeed created in November 2010 at Liam Wyatt but then relatively quickly deleted (with my agreement) as there were only sources that referenced me in passing rather than being, not about me per se. I'm not going to vote on this topic one way or another since I'm so inextricably linked to the idea of bios of "our own" :-) Witty lama 11:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, sorry to say. I'm not seeing multiple, substantial, independently-published sources. My crystal ball says there probably will be, eventually, so no prejudice against recreation when such sources exist. Carrite (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2013 (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.