Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charity Majors

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 delete‎. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Majors[edit]

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

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

Requested at WT:AFD as the subject has little notability and has remained a stub for a long time. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first source talking about the subject is self published (open New York Times), the second is not reliable (Business Insider). Keeping this article would go against WP:NBASIC. This BLP stub has not been improved in more than a year and I believe the subject will have even less notability in the future. (I am the original filer of the AfD) 128.6.36.94 (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note: this is the IP that requested the deletion (permalink). Primefac (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: There's no consensus that Business Insider is not reliable per WP:BI. Here, I think BI is reliable because the article was written by a journalist who works for BI, not via syndication of sponsored content. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Note that OP who lodged the request for this AfD (not Zippybonzo) was blocked for disruptive editing. Lizthegrey (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NBASIC because almost all sources appear to be interviews, which are primary sources and don't count towards establishing notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting as I find this discussion a bit confusing with the original nominator's vote struck out and the proposal to redirect this article to one that doesn't exist. Hopefully, a few more opinions will make consensus more conclusive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources for this article. Adler3 (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Lizthegrey (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
here are some sources (please note my conflict of interest): https://www.businessinsider.com/honeycomb-ceo-charity-majors-is-a-force-of-nature-for-valley-engineers-2017-5 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/business/startups-enterprise-big-tech.html https://www.infoworld.com/article/3137501/ex-facebook-dropbox-engineers-offer-debugging-as-a-service.html Lizthegrey (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO; interviews are not independent of the person being interviewed, since all of the relevant content in such an interview comes from the subject themselves. The proposed redirect target above doesn't exist so isn't a viable target. - Aoidh (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pharaoh of the Wizards, @Liz, & @Aoidh, it appears someone has created the page I had in mind for the redirect (honeycomb.io). Thoughts? Lizthegrey (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that a brand new SPA (whose only edit outside of creating this article was to briefly edit Liz Fong-Jones) threw together an article that would present a valid redirect target for this article's subject at AfD. COI concerns aside I haven't looked into it too much, but I'm not overly impressed with the state of the sourcing in that article and suspect it in turn would not survive an AfD. This individual's claims go beyond this honeycomb.io company so it remains an unviable redirect target, even if it (for now) exists. - Aoidh (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for considering.
    aside: yeah I admit being absolutely befuddled by the out of the blue SPA as well, someone might want to request a SPI against both me and against User:SquareInARoundHole just to confirm or rule those possibilities out. I checked with our PR agency and they say it isn't them, for the record. Lizthegrey (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if it sounded like I was accusing you specifically of having anything to do with that account, I am not. I'm not pointing fingers at existing editors (else my comments would have gone to SPI) but it is suspicious timing that the account was created with the sole focus of this company and its leadership, and happened to have created an article during this AfD that just happens to solve a redirect problem presented here. - Aoidh (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honeycomb.io&action=history
    In the edit history the edit timing is coordinated within minutes between Liz the Grey and Love The Andes so it is pretty clear it is an alt account like you are saying. In the biography linked here and the new article it says she is network engineer so this is why she is confident saying "go verify me".
    Also I do not know why she suddenly says in this conversation she is not a banned account unrelated to the discussion User:SquareInARoundHole (not User:Love The Andes).
    However I think the new article, whoever made it, has enough sources so I change my view to support redirect. Maybe even this current article can be improved with extra sources. Adler3 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Lizthegrey (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles are routinely deleted at AfD that have dozens of sources; it's the quality of the sources that matter rather than the quantity. The existence of sources in an article does not establish or even create a presumption of notability. That article fails WP:NORG and this one fails WP:NBIO, even if it were a viable redirect target, which again it is not. - Aoidh (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because SquareInARoundHole has a history of socking articles in this topic area which makes me think Andes is them, but that's an aside we can take over to SPI. Lizthegrey (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and the proposed redirect target above does not exist at present so isn't a viable target.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have expanded the article quite a bit past where it was when nominated for deletion. The new sources include the New York Times (an article, not the Open NYT mentioned above in this discussion) and InfoWorld. Majors' ideas are also noted in books, and she herself has published a few books (though they are technical books and I was not able to find reviews). DaffodilOcean (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new sources are a trivial book mention in the introduction where they're described simply as a friendly coworker of the author (so not independent), a podcast interview and a web interview and a trivial mention in the NYT, not enough to show notability for even WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've only skimmed the References section which shows article titles, but none seem like much of a biography, and she doesn't seem to be known for anything YET (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL) other than starting this company. WP:1E sort of applies here, one company. IF the company is successful and she becomes known for entrepeneurship and/or good leadership or something else, than she may be notable in the future. (For the record, I'd likely be classified as a deletionist.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar317 (talk • contribs) 22:50, May 19, 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect She definitely isn't just notable for her company as she has notability from her other careers and works. The article can definitely be expanded, but if not redirect it to the more notable Honeycomb.io. Love The Andes (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC) — Love The Andes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Another thing these debates have lost over the past few years is that every lede should make a claim or summarize the person's notability. This one doesn't; it simply recounts her job history. 128.252.154.3 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As has been extensively discussed, none of the sources are of a high enough quality to meet WP:NBASIC. I think a key point is that, per WP:SIGCOV, suitable sources address the subject directly. In this case, it appears that Majors is often mentioned in sources about Honeycomb, but only in her relation to that company. Material that mentions her but is not about her in that sense does not establish notability, even if the other criteria were fully met. It can contribute to it, but if a person is only ever discussed or mentioned in relation to their position in their company, that probably indicates a lack of notability of that person as a standalone subject. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Actualcpscm's decision. CastJared (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2023 (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/Charity_Majors&oldid=1157872885"