Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Walsh

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 Wikimedia Foundation. Noting Kosboot's concern about "transparency" (and partially Smallbone's point about "notable to our readers"), information may need to be added to that article, but that should be discussed there. Other chairperson articles that may warrant deletion/redirecting should be nominated separately to allow full discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Walsh[edit]

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

I mean no disrespect towards Walsh as a person, as a Wikipedia editor or as a chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am sure she is good at all these things. But the article currently contains no independent sources at all to indicate she is notable, only links on the Wikimedia Foundation's own website. I was able to find an article she co-wrote in the Washington Post, as well as a brief mention in the New York Times, however it seems to me that Ms. Walsh does not meet WP:BIO, especially as the Washington Post article isn't really independent as she (along with Jimbo) was one of the co-writers thereof. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation or Delete. However, if we delete this page, we'll probably need to clean up several other pages, too, as this is part of a series on Wikimedia chairpersons. To suddenly have a hole in the sequence is a bit off-putting, and a few of them are equally non-notable. As far as Kat Walsh goes, I noticed a few trivial mentions scattered throughout reliable sources, but there really doesn't seem to be anything like significant coverage. I'm sure she does good work, but I don't think holding a position with the WMF makes one inherently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation or delete, assuming no other sources are found. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - seems pretty silly to try to delete this, even before all the references were added. We don't need to artificially follow all the picayune rules when we know that WMF Chairs are notable to our readers (WP:IAR if you need to follow a formal rule). Well there are lots of sources now, might as well make it a speedy keep. What was the WP:POINT? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your smug condescension is not conducive to an adult discussion. This person bio will be held to the notability standards of this project just as anyone else's bio would be; we should not carve out exceptions or name-drop WP:IAR for Wikipedian insiders. This is purportedly an encyclopedia not a clubhouse for our buddies, so yes, we do have to follow the project's rules here. Tarc (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Smug condescension" is a rather terrible way to start off a conversation. I suggest you just look at the facts - e.g. the number of times she's appeared in the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to strike your poorly-concealed accusation that Jinkinson is acting disruptively. — Scott • talk 14:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Chair of the WMF is not an inherently notable position, so we must abide by WP:GNG and WP:N. The sources before the recent additions were already lacking, and the additions have not alleviated that concern;
1. law harvard.edu: The subject's posts to the wikimedia mailing list are cited in the footnotes for a paper, nothing more.
2. Politico; a 1-paragraph announcement of the appointment, amidst nine other news-of-the-day blog-like posts.
3. CBC Radio: Participant in a podcast about the Wikipedia, not about Walsh herself.
4. businessweek.com: Just a directory listing of WMF personnel, nothing more.

None of this hits the Wikipedia's notability threshold. Tarc (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WMF itself is news, so how much more so is its chair. Even if she (or anyone else) was not notable, I'd say for the sake of transparency, it is necessary to have information about the person and the position available. -- kosboot (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I put forward the IAR (i.e. common sense) argument above and fully believe it, I'd prefer folks just address the facts, e.g. how many times she's appeared in major newspapers. Some people don't like WP:IAR and some people are just averse to common sense!

Counting just the major independent sources there are:

2 cites from the New York Times
1 from the Wall Street Journal
The op-ed in the Washington Post (reprinted in a college textbook)
The twin Canadian Broadcasting Company broadcasts
an academic article with info from Walsh
a short listing at Bloomberg Business Week
a short piece from Politico.com

Tarc might argue that 4 paragraphs in one NYTimes article is not substantial, but

Quoting from WP:BASIC

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also from WP:BASIC; "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", and the coverage found can certainly be labeled as that. IMO the blinders need to come off here; the heads of the WMF are just regular people who are subject to our notability standards just as anyone else would be. They are not on pedestals, they are not to be deified. Tarc (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that my feelings are not terribly strong on this matter and that if a majority wants to delete, so be it. That said, I also believe and have always felt that WP's notability guidelines with regard to people is excessively restrictive. There should be more people, *especially* those who don't belong in an encyclopedia but who make a mark on life and culture. -- kosboot (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can prove that the position of chairman of the WMF establishes inherent notability. KonveyorBelt 20:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not generally notable. I concur with Tarc's analysis of the sources. — Scott • talk 18:10, 31 January 2014 (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.