Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Mabey

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 redirect to Art+Feminism. Useful content can be merged to that article. Consensus is that the subject doesn't meet WP:N at this time. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Mabey[edit]

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

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

Non-noteworthy individual Thanks, (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know the subject, so I have a CoI, but I'm no so sure about "non-noteworthy". Foreign Policy Magazine has listed her as one of the "Chroniclers" in their 2014 list of Global Thinkers. [1] Someone, at some point, took note. Vexations (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't see any evidence the subject meets the general notability guideline, while there is coverage it's interviews and passing mentions in articles about Wikipedia editathons. Given the nature of the subject I would expect any references to be easily available online. The Foreign Policy mention would only count if it is a "well-known and significant award or honor" (WP:BIO) and even then it would only indicate that she was likely to be notable. Hut 8.5 12:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Foreign Policy and other sources provide notability for the article. The Wikipedia Art and Feminism project is already a notable topic, and as a major co-founder Mabey passes the bar and is likely mentioned in many more sources on that page. And per WP:BLUEGREENHAIR. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to avoid navel gazing. If someone is most notable for work related to Wikipedia, I see no reason to have an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So, we can delete Jimbo Wales, then? XOR'easter (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, "we" don't. Please remember that Wikipedia is the world's largest and likely most accurate encyclopedia (except, often, when covering recent news events) and the world's largest volunteer collaboration project. Its notability is well established, so articles about Wikipedia are not about "us" but about a major and notable educational force in the world. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Art+Feminism - There are sources about the article's subject, but not with the necessary scope and breadth of in-depth coverage. This interview is useful, but not sufficient and they've written various pieces, but that too is not enough to meet the notability standard. The interviews are in the context of Art+Feminism and that should be the target of the redirect. There may well be independent notability in the future, and I have no objection to recreation of a standalone article in the future if that happens. Alansohn (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Art+Feminism. There are quite a few passing mentions, and a couple of interviews, but I'm not seeing the sort of coverage that would help pass GNG, and that award is clearly not enough for an NBIO pass. When she is mentioned, it is mostly briefly as part of larger coverage of the project. However, there are a couple of sources here that would be useful at the target article, so a selective merge seems like the best approach. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Art+Feminism as co-founder.Djflem (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 13 potential new sources at the talk page Talk:Jacqueline Mabey that could be used to expand the page and improve its sourcing to meet WP:GNG. (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First let me declare I have a COI, as a co-founder of Art+Feminism, and will not be !voting, just leaving this comment. I want to point out a few big picture considerations regarding the discussion as it has evolved, and may evolve after my comment.

The "Art+Feminism already has a page” and “subject is already covered there” argument is a misapplication of WP:NOTINHEIRITED. This is a misunderstanding of the relationship between creators and the things they create. For example, there are countless artists, actors, writers, curators, musicians whose notability derives purely from the artwork they made, TV shows/movies they were in, book they wrote, exhibition they curated, or band that they were in and who have far less WP:RS than is the case here.
Wikipedia is not apart from culture, it is a part of culture. It is surreal to argue that because someone became notable because of their advocacy and activism work to change the gender gap on Wikipedia, that Wikipedia shouldn't "navel gaze" and write about them. I will point out that when Wikipedia does include articles about Wikipedia people, the trend is to prioritize technical and editing work, and deprioritize organizing and community work. You can see that here at the List of Wikipedia people or the Category:Wikipedia people. This dialectic of course reflects the biases of the community's own values (see RfA discussions re edit count! edit count! edit count!) and also reflects the implicit biases of Wikipedia's Gender Gap.
Discounting either of these two points by pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFF is a way of avoiding reckoning with Wikipedia’s systemic biases; by Wikipedia, I mean the both Encyclopedia and the community. Treating every single question or discussion as isolated from a system, reproduces systemic problems.
This discussion is missing some key participants. Firstly, there are dozens of gender gap editors who, like me, cannot !vote here precisely because the subject and the project/organization/movement they co-founded has had such an impact that all of them have a COI. But also, because this article wasn’t sorted right: it should have been sorted to Arts, Sexuality and gender given that the article subject’s area of work is literally Art and Feminism but also because the article subject uses they/them pronouns (and has been misgendered throughout this discussion.)

Lastly, I want to raise the consideration that this nomination itself was not made in good faith. The nominator is a very new account that very quickly began edit warring over contentious edits to Gamergate protected gender and sexuality articles, such as adding deadnames in to trans people’s pages [2] Very quickly they were warned, though they deleted these warnings from their talk page [3] and [4]. The user was able to fire off this nomination in between their first [5] and second block. [6] And the user is now apparently Retired [7]. While that doesn’t change the fact that the article has been nominated, and is being discussed, it does point back to the above points. Theredproject (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Art+Feminism. One of 4 co-founders of a fairly minor "edit-a-thon" that seemingly only took place between 2014 and 2017. All of the references are for WP:ONEVENT which does have a justifiable level of coverage to have an article on its own, but this co-founder hasn't received coverage for anything else. To be honest, 3/4 of the co-founders probably aren't notable. I don't think we should have articles on everyone who co-founds an event because they got interviewed about it. This seems largely a place for this person to put their resume. Per the user's concerns, we can't just keep articles with poor or no sourcing in an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, otherwise, we could end up putting out false information. I don't see how the nominator's support of the Gamergate movement is relevant. If this article goes to delete I will list Siân Evans (librarian) as well as she is also only notable for co-founding this event. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AlessandroTiandelli333, umm.. a fairly minor "edit-a-thon" that seemingly only took place between 2014 and 2017 isn't correct. There have been many, and they're still being organized. Check your sources.

Also: People who organize such edit-a-thons, or, more just generally women who engage in on-line speech in general, are frequently harassed in an attempt to silence them. I think the the mention of Gamergate refers to such behaviour; some people may feel this nomination for deletion is a form of harassment, and I do. One could make the argument that the motivation of the nominator is irrelevant, of course, and even continue that behaviour, insisting that such nominations simply reflect the lack of sources. From a self-identied paleoconservative, I find that unconvincing. If you're really concerned about lack of sourcingin wikipedia article, I have a list of video game companies with no sources at all you might want to tackle, instead of under-sourced article of people whose politics you oppose. Vexations (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed any of the arguments on this afd. We don't change wiki guidelines because someone thinks they are being poorly treated. The only point you have made is that WP:OSE. The point remains that this person is only notable for WP:ONEEVENT, i.e co-founding the editathon, so, therefore, fails WP:GNG. If you can find other sources of this person getting coverage for other things I and other editors may be willing to reconsider. Did the person that listed this article have the intentions to remove this person as they disagree with them? Perhaps. Is it relevant? No. If someone fails wiki notability guidelines then they shouldn't have an article. If you think that constitutes "harassment" then perhaps you should take it up with an admin and try to remove the afd process. And yes, I'm a conservative, what of it? I've voted to keep articles of people "whose ideology I oppose" multiple times, even when the majority voted delete, for instance, this from just last week: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Iannarone. Has Wiki passed a rule that people can't vote on articles about people from different ideologies? I saw this article listed at afd, and this person has only received coverage for WP:ONEVENT so I don't think they pass WP:GNG. Lastly, I don't think Edmund Burke ever spoke about women having articles on Wikipedia, so I don't think I'm "opposed" to this person, but you can get back to me about that one. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AlessandroTiandelli333, I addressed the factual error you made, and I'll clarify that Art + Feminism is not WP:ONEVENT. Misrepresentation of facts and and policy are pertinent to this AfD. You're guilty of both. Vexations (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2020 (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.