Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Kachold

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 delete. BJ^Talk 22:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Kachold

Lisa Kachold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Entirely non-notable person, in no way meets notability or biography minimum requirements. Don't be fooled by the long list of references in this article. They seem to all fit into two categories: 1) References that do not mention this person at all and 2) Curriculum Vitae's created by this person themselves, usually hosted on websites of organizations she belongs to. There appears to be zero independent sources about this person. Checking Google gives nothing but CVs and resumes and one sentance mentions, things like attended such-and-such a confernece, etc. Google News search turns up squadoosh as well. I see nothing here that meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - This appears to meet CSD A7 -Marcusmax(speak) 02:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As the nominator, I would disagree with that assessment. A7 is exclusively for articles which make no claims of importance or notability. This article certainly claims notability as "one of the first Internet women in engineering and computer science." Whether such claims are verifiable or notable in themselves is debatable, which is why we have the debate. I am looking to see this deleted, but no use doing so out-of-process. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Sometimes I get a bit carried away, I just can't handle when fake articles exist to look like real ones. Although you are right it does make a statment of notability. -Marcusmax(speak) 12:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO, probably not speedy, but dern close. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Move/rename/merge Content to both Obnosis; add Category:Internet_properties_established_in_1996 and merge bio to User space. Now that Wikipedia Administrators know that User:Lisa Kachold is not a Sockpuppet they will not delete the User:Lisa Kachold. Referencing Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia seek inclusionism. If failure for article on it's own wins community WP:consensus, (with all [attacks] ignored and bias excluded, move/merge bio portion of page to User:LisaKachold. Suggest development of reliable sources in next four days by community page submitters LisaKachold (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet Speedy Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. (Suspected Scientology based) IP DoS flooding to the hosting servers upon which Obnosis.com is served, as well as flooding of IP of the originating article editor, interferes with innocent users. Page, relocated to User:Lisa Kachold as appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.119.178 (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to User:LisaKachold Seems to fit as a user page, but unless some notability can be demonstrated, it's a stretch as a separate article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• The user in question is User:LisaKachold without the space. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Got it. We've got deletes and keeps coming from the identical IP address. There's something fishy going on here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment See Talk:Lisa Kachold more than one user often edit from same proxy IP address, which under Wikipedia rules alone does not equate to puppetry. However, logging in protects from IP farming/flooding and Administrators might kindly educate these users to do so, rather than block without adequate proof? The issue of WP:COI and puppetry was already addressed. Lisakachold (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep WP:Note is served via existing precedence of other WP:BIO pages of women, pages of Anonymous_(Group), and biographies in general showing gender history. If page was renamed/moved or changed to obnosis.com the subject would also meet the notable parameters for historical events in Internet history. On this Deletion discussion, nominator Jayron32 fails state HOW contribution Lisa Kachold fails to meet notability or biography, rather just simply stating an opinion.

Here's what WP:BIO says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

• The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
• The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

• The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
• The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
• The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
• The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

Wikipedia has long been critiqued for Exclusionism (especially after IRC chat group consensus or group judgements) outside of Wikipedia policy. Per Alternatives to deletion the tag: {{verify}} to flag (for lack of verifiability) would certainly precede any deletion nomination. The domain name alone "obnosis.com" is therefore notable in context with the professionalism and history of gender issues for the century in the information technology field.

Citing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources is most appropriate here.

WP:Reliable Sources states:

Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context.

• Moderated discussion lists for veracity of technical experience and notability working in open source or technical roles is an established 3rd party precedent, while not as sole reliable source. These include PLUG HackFests, SunManagers, WebSphere, FreeGeek, PPTP, Nmap lists.

• Additional reliable sources of wiki's for Freegeek, and Obnosis.com are therefore also acceptable, in context as 3rd party reliable sources.

• Linux and Internet News editors also will be happy to read through these Wikipedia pages to clearly see the notability of the gender technical firsts, obnosis.com domain word hack and defense across 15 years (for one of the .Com's registered in 1996) between Scientology and CUD, later Anonymous Group. Any of five weekly editorial sites would be happy to pick up this story, and those sources WILL be inclusive as primary (though that is possibly not in going to happen in 3 days), however, the SVN and Trixbox free and open source contribution references for the RhinoEquipment Corporation work and PCMCIA device contribution can certainly be developed for notable contribution with Lisa Kachold's name, and additional primary verifiable sources clearly be obtained before 5 days. It is questionable that those sources will be recognized, as the sources for the "obnosis" page met primary Reliability, also as demonstrated via the original content, yet that page was nominated for deletion, sent to Wiktionary, where it was included for use both as an english verb and a Scientology word, until pick pick pick, users or editors edit away all content, but positive Scientology references, and Usenet (not meeting Reliable Source standards) references to display an inaccurate [[1]] Scientology censored version and revision history, that includes none of the durably archived links and did (until I complained recently contained a great many non-durably archived and news links to favorably promote Scientology (how this does not fail WP:COI, for a cult charging extensive prices for counseling I can't understand). Go ahead and compare the obnosis Wikipedia, Wiktionary and ObnosisWiki versions and tell me that the Wikipedia (and Wiktionary) processes and policies that are built in to allow new content, historical content worthy from within the WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, and maintain a neutral correct point of view are being implemented?

• The sheer number of references alone (which by Wikipedia standards, do not have to ALL be exemplary of or for Subject reliable sources, but be developed in context to the subject matter) meet the requirements for reliable source based on the Notability claimed in the BIO header and therefore prove the retention of this page. Is this a case of ignore all rules or simply an agenda of not wanting to take on any controversial or possibly controversial Scientology content (obnosis) however historical, because of the probable Scientology edit wars and Denial of Service packet issues due to their claimed ownership of the word obnosis.

Jayron32, nominator appears to confuse use of verifiability with WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. Deletion of content appropriate for a User:Page, especially for a previously deleted user (without adequate proof of sockpuppetry) during controversy and a possible Scientology based edit war of page submissions (obnosis) fails to meet with good faith assumptions and hint at bias. Optimally, Lisa Kachold page could happily be designated via WP:RM to User:Lisa Kachold should {verify} attempts from community editing/submitting content fail to meet Wikipedia inclusion standards. Overuse of Nomination for Deletion as iron handed censor swipes from Wikipedia Administrators/Editors is lampooned on external sites. Also, once a page is retained/deleted after Nomination for Deletion, it cannot be submitted/nominated again; so censorship is created via failing to allow for content to meet minimum requirements built into Wikipedia policy and process. This is a second unregistered Wiki User from the same IP, not a WP:Sock.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.119.178 (talk • contribs)

• Your first sentence doesn't make sense anonymous user. The existing precendence is that articles need to be verifiable and meet inclusion criteria. The fact other articles do has no bearing on this one. Also, the nominator did provide a reason. He said it was unverifiable through independent sources. The claim "Also, once a page is retained/deleted after Nomination for Deletion, it cannot be submitted/nominated again" is patently false. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Basically they're posing a "prove it's not" argument, which doesn't hold water. The policy is, "prove it is." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable, and no amount of wikilawyering will make it so. Mayalld (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete extraordinarily non-notable individual, complete with every single detail of an utterly unremarkable IT career. Given the tone and silliness of it all, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this were a subtle attack page by someone trying to make Lisa look ridiculous and vain. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Completely and utterly notable, especially for obnosis.com after Alt.religion.scientology UseNet, CUD, and Anonymous_(Group) history. Completely notable woman for Computer_Security, current FOSS contributions. Wikipedia:Notability_(people) is even served with existing references; other pages exist with less Wikipedia:Verifiability exist. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons looks good too. Notability for the domain name alone exists, however the subject matter might better be moved to Category:Internet_properties_established_in_1996. Mass nominations for deletion are poor community. As for Alternatives to deletion, a MOVE or MERGE is recommended to be considered first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hear0Evil (talk • contribs) — Hear0Evil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment As various users interested in this article keep referring to the notability of other articles in reference to this one, I'd encourage him/her/them to read WP:OTHERSTUFF as to why we don't care about the other articles in relation to this one. Katr67 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Getting _very_ close to an A7 - does the use of the word "infamous" count as an assertion of notability, because that's about all that's keeping it from there? Strong fail of WP:N in any case. Tevildo (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO, almost certainly not a speedy but quite definitely a non notable individual.--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 21:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Move to Lisa Kachold's user page (for now), where it can do no harm. I might not be around much, so if by the end of this discussion we have more verifiable info on what this person has done re:Scientology for instance, please assume my opinion switches to KEEP.--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC) So no: off-site canvassing does not particularly sway me <strict frown> ; but verifiable data just might. :-)
• Delete - I'm still missing the reliable sources that have found her activities worthy of comment. Either in the computer field or regarding Scientology. Even if she is not regarded favorably by the sources, the fact that she deserves any comment at all would be important. I'd be willing to change my vote if enough reliable sources are provided. Due to the Wikipedia policies regarding web forums, information about what she has done on Usenet or on the web would not be persuasive. We used to have an article called Obnosis which was deleted at AfD due to lack of reliable sources, and I assume that the same issues might occur regarding Lisa Kachold herself. (Her article currently has a section called Lisa Kachold#Obnosis .com. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Sources (3rd, 2nd and primary) Available for WP:NOTE WP:BIO

http://bbslist.textfiles.com/503/oldschool.html
http://www.textfiles.com/bbs/BBSLISTS/pdxbbs-l.txt
http://www.coderanch.com/t/75138/Websphere/WUG-WebSphere-User-s-Groups
http://wiki.freegeek.org/index.php/User:Obnosis
http://www.linkedin.com/in/obnosis (NOTE IBM, Randal L. Schwartz/Stonehenge connections in context to stated professional History)
http://www.mail-archive.com/search?q=lisa+kachold&l=plug-discuss%40lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=82BA6DCD9735C34ABC38DF9FF37DAE6C02200E79%40santana.ic.aiall
http://www.geekspeakr.com/speaker/lisa-kachold
http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/SunManagers/2007-07/
http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Obnosis_(deleted_05_Sep_2008_at_03:45)
http://wiki.obnosis.com

Forums from RhinoEquipment with svn sources can be obtained (although serveftp.com is not allowed by Wikipedia): htttp://rhinopub.serveftp.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofileu=86&sid=b5ab488e0aa5a903e86e6e7504f92941

A great deal of other sources are available, including soon to be released news.

Please tell us all which one is not allowed by the policy and how many of what you require. Books are not used in all the other notable women or Bios? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.119.178 (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminder Read WP:OTHERSTUFF about why we don't care about the "other notable women or Bios". Katr67 (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Users and article submitters have made very clear requests after reading the WP:BIO and Reliability source policy information for feedback from editors or Administrators in an educational way specific to why the reliable sources that prove claimed Notability are not adequate? According to the BIO, this person as a technical woman during the .Com years, working in the trenches, DOES meet Notability? According to the BIO, this person, as a technical woman registering the domain obnosis.com as a hack IS notable; Notabiity for tiger team and security work, User's Group contributions, and device driver or source development is also proven by reliable sources. According to Wikipedia policy, Deletion without community respect, user training and very specific description of an article submission's failings, while invoking subject vagueness and/or the Wiki defense of intellectualism, is seriously frowned upon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.119.178 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We'd love to give feedback. :-) Can you provide a specific quote from one of those sources that shows why Lisa Kachold might be especially notable? Just one will do for now. We can then do the feedback for that first quote, and let's see where goes from there. Even if the deadline passes, nothing is permanently deleted on wikipedia, so we can take our time to sort this out. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've been told there is going to be an article coming out soon, and that it might cover some notability concerns? Could we decide to wait for that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No objection to holding a DRV later if an article appears in print which addresses all of the many problems. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Might be handy to keep article in a holding pattern in userspace, while we wait? That way we get to keep these new editors around, and hopefully they'll learn and work on more wiki-topics, and tell their friends too. :-) That might be somewhat worth it.--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Nice resume, but Wikipedia isn't the place to post one's resume. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. ThemFromSpace 14:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a resume. And, frankly, if I received such a resume, I'd be shocked at some of the easily contradicted claims. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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.