Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Wu

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Wu[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Shirley Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not appear to the be the Shirley Wu who meets WP:NSCHOLAR. Was deprodded with the claim that she has won major awards, however that does not appear to be the case. Onel5969 TT me 15:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 15:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider Wu to be an academic, so she needs to meet the general notability guidelines for people. However, I think she does meet those guidelines. The Information is Beautiful awards are the main awards in the data visualization space, and she has won them several times (and, received outside press about them, such as [[1]]). Her co-author, Nadieh Bremer has met the notability guidelines. If you can point me toward what makes Bremer count as notable but not Wu, I'm certain I can adjust Wu's article to check the same boxes. AmeliaMN (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think AmeliaMN's points are right on the money. Sgb235 16:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment this basically boils down to whether the "Information is Beautiful" Awards are notable or not, and then consequently we would have to keep or delete probably both Nadieh Bremer and Shirley Wu as the notability of both are tied to these awards. It seems Information is Beautiful is a blog run by [[David McCandless] which would argue against notability here. However, the "Information Is Beautiful Awards" keyword reveals coverage of a few newspapers, including Wired, Guardian, The Verge. --hroest 00:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hannes Röst, hi. I would disagree. It is not whether or not the Information is Beautiful Awards are notable. But whether they are notable enough to meet the requirements of any SNGs. Which they clearly do not. For example, the SXSW festival is notable, but winning an award there does not make you automatically pass WP:NFILM. Even if the Information is Beautiful Awards are notable, that does not mean that this person is notable. Onel5969 TT me 02:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onel5969 sorry, that is what I meant. Whether the awards are notable enough to merit an article on the winner of the award. I agree the bar is higher for that than whether the awards themselves are notable and get some coverage from RS, but I am not sure where to set the bar. This is clearly a weak case here with the award being given out by a blog as I mentioned above. --hroest 13:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the characterization that the award is "given out by a blog." The award was started by David McCandless, but it is judged by a panel of experts. For example, the first year of the awards the panel included Brian Eno, Paola Antonelli, and Maria Popova. [[2]] Another year, judges included Mona Chalabi, Kim Rees, Alberto Cairo, Fernanda Viégas and Giorgia Lupi [[3]]. Are you really arguing that winners of the SXSW festival are not notable? Looking at 2021 winners I see The Fallout (film) and Lily Topples the World already have pages. Would it be better to write pages about the winning works from the Information is Beautiful Awards? AmeliaMN (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with AmeliaMN's statement that Information is Beautiful being merely "a blog" shouldn't refute the notability of an award tied to it. WP:NMOVIE notes there are no clear guidelines on what a "major award" is, but I would argue that Information is Beautiful is a "major award" in the realm of data visualization. Periodicals like The Guardian regularly report on the winners. Winners of these awards tend to be independents (like Wu, and actually Bremer, as well), but also notable data-focused periodicals annually submit for this award. Winners in the past include Bloomberg News, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and ProPublica. As an aside, blogs in the realm of data visualization are sort of the medium outside of data journalism (which many would argue is a subset of data viz). I think related examples of notable "blogs" in the space would be Fivethirtyeight, and Nathan Yau's FlowingData, which are both pretty highly regarded in the community. Anyhow, wanted to also add that Information is Beautiful Awards is technically also managed by the consulting company Kantar Group. --Engineerchange (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment articles are on the line of acceptability. If rejected, they should be moved into draft space and not deleted.
    Secondly, I just added their Online Journalism Awards ? This award is cited within Wikipedia, see Online News Association#Online Journalism Awards (OJAs). While its not the gold standard in data visualization, it's certainly a notable award in general and digital journalism and valid third party source. It prizes the best data visualization of a full year, with NYT, Guardian, Washington Post and other giant competing with their best teams. Yug (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Net magazine doesn't make their archives easily available, but I think reference number 5 on the article right now (Lindberg, Oliver (August 2019). "Learn from a Data-Viz Whizz". Net Magazine.) is a RS. Here is a link to a page that reproduces some of the article [[4]] AmeliaMN (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just added two more Fast Company articles that I hope count as RS. AmeliaMN (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I took a shot at adding more to this article, because her work does seem innovative with long-term significance (though it may not have found its foothold in history quite yet). I couldn't find much more than has been included, but that may only reflect the traditional lack of in-depth coverage of female minorities, rather than her true notability. Only time will tell. JAnnora2 (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment perhaps a small step towards notability, but Wu was featured by GitHub today as a part of their ReadME project: tweet and link --Engineerchange (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article has been significantly improved since the deletion discussion was initiated, and now clearly meets notability. There are multiple independent, reliable sources cited about Wu as an individual. AmeliaMN (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per part 3 of WP:NARTIST; her collective body of work (book, Bussed Out viz, Hamilton viz, Data Sketches project) appear well-known in the data visualization and data journalism communities, as evidenced by multiple reliable, independent sources that cover both of those domains (Digital Arts, Net Magazine, Fast Company) and a number of independent "articles" (read: podcasts/videos/interviews) that review her work (storytellingwithdata, frontendmasters, reactiveconf, Spotify's Anchor). --Engineerchange (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Specific note (before I relist), just to clarify: interviews are NOT adequate sources for notability purposes, since they are primary sources (see footnote c at WP:NOR). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: None of the arguments are particularly convincing. I will note that WP:NRVE is quite explicit that no subject is ever inherently notable, whether that be because the subject won an award or something else - notability is not inherited either. I see the article appears to have significantly be edited (improved?) during the course of this AfD. Further discussion should focus on added sources and determine whether they actually show the subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG - that is, "significant coverage in muliple reliable sources".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing presented above convinces me otherwise. I did my due diligence - this subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. The majority of sourcing is self-published or primary source material. And winning an award or writing some papers doesn't convince me they merit inclusion at this time. The subject does not meet WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep strike duplicate !vote Onel5969 TT me 22:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC) While there are a number of borderline primary sources (I think there should be somewhat of a distinction between something completely in the person's control, like their personal website, and things that get edited and at least lightly fact-checked, like interviews), there are multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources. The strongest source is Lindberg, Oliver (August 2019). "Learn from a Data-Viz Whizz". Net Magazine. Unfortunately, the magazine is primarily a print publication and doesn't have their archives online. However, here is a link to a page that reproduces some of the article [[5]] The other strongest sources are the two FastCompany articles about her work, What Happens When Google Turns Artists Loose On Its Search Data and Move over, data visualization. The era of ‘data simulation’ is here. If this discussion results in a delete decision, please move back to the draftspace. The co-authored book she wrote with Nadieh Bremer is very new, but is gaining critical attention and I believe will lead to more sources in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmeliaMN (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This AfD discussion has generated plenty of heat, alas not so much light... I haven't seen a single persuasive argument as to why this should be kept, nor is there anything in the article which conclusively demonstrates notability, not alone and not even when all is added up. It boils down to a somewhat promotional piece (with heavy refbombing) on a person doing their job, for which they've received some non-notable recognition. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO, and more to the point fails to convince me that this article is needed in an encyclopaedia. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others above, and when in doubt keep. Issues can always be resolved on the talk page or by another nomination later by someone else. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per DoubleGrazing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:18, 9 June 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shirley_Wu&oldid=1079981218"