Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Rosenberg


 * 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. Per NOTTABLOID, TNT, BLP1E, and more alphabet soup. Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Amanda Rosenberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I recognize there are references, but I think this crosses over into NOT TABLOID. Her role in GGlass is not sufficiently important for that to make it her notable, and the other material is in my opinion a classic example of BLP1E.  DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Easily passes WP:GNG. As a google executive, her role in GGlass and breaking up Brin's marriage is two different things. WP:BLP2E is not policy.  The NYT article says basically that she, Sergey and their politics are the reason Glass was canceled. Google Glass is extremely notable and influence influences the direction of wearable technology.  The Dissident Aggressor 01:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: It seems that the censors are succeding to keep the more remarkable material out of the article such as her influence on the downfall of glass, her ambition and some of her more controversial viewpoints, despite being extremely well sourced.   If that information is supressed (as it has been), then the sources that were written about those topics are irrelevant - hence reasons she would pass WP:GNG are dismissed.  In that context, there is no reason this person would pass any of our notability guidelines.  The Dissident Aggressor 15:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that attempts to improve the article to address the concerns voiced in the "delete" opinions seem to have been disrupted. I won't go so far as to characterize anyone as a censor, even if they might be lapsing from WP:CENSOR, as I believe all the lapses were well-intentioned lapses.
 * Frankly, in the nine years I have participated in AFD, and the hundreds of AFD discussions I have participated in, I have never seen quite this pattern of editing.
 * In this edit on User:ErikHaugen Erik Haugen seems to have gone on record that the article should be merged.  But they didn't voice a delete or merge opinion here.  Instead they made numerous excision of material they didn't like, material that I think you and I agreed established that Ms Rosenberg was known for more than a signle event.  Several other contributors have made significant excisions that seriously undermined efforts to demonstrate that Ms Rosenberg was known for more than a single event -- instead of voicing a delete or merge opinion.
 * Usually people who favor merge or delete merely voice their opinion in the AFD, or on the talk page, and allow those who favor a "keep" a free hand to try to address the concerns voiced by the "delete" camp.
 * A few years ago there was a particular disruptive contributor who accidentally said, in an AFD, "I favor keeping this article, but only if it is my preferred version that is kept. Otherwise I favor delete."  User:Sherurcij explained to him that, when we have acknowledged that a topic is notable, we don't get to pick and choose whether it is kept or deleted, based on whether it looks like our preferred version is kept.  To try to keep only our preferred version, and to otherwise delete an article because our preferred version is not the version being kept is a huge lapse from WP:NPOV. Geo Swan (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding my position. If folks are intent on keeping all the negative crap published about this person out of the artice (as they seem to be), then you're left with just a Product Marketing Manager of a failed product.      She is only notable for the negative crap, and there's plenty of it (contributing to the failure of a product, "sleeping her way" to prominence, racist comments).  If it weren't for her relationship with Brin and the impact of all that, nobody would have ever heard of her.   The Dissident Aggressor 23:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am misunderstanding your position. The way I see it, a responsible administrator should ignore the clearly non-policy compliant arguments.  Claims of NPOV, for instance, several of the delete arguments here are based solely on NPOV, and deserve to be ignored.  Others are clearly instances of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and should also be ignored.
 * An administrator may do a simple nose count, and not comply with their obligation to discount bad arguments. But that wouldn't make those bad arguments valid.
 * As for "negative crap" -- some people who don't like the article have characterized material as negative, when, whether the coverage was negative or positive was a value judgment. For instance, someone called my coverage of the $48,000 per year fees for her high school as negative.  Others might see it as positive, that her family had enough money to be able to afford to send her as an exclusive school.
 * I don't see the Google Glass project as a failure, even if never breaks even. It is a significant enough project that if the Apple iGlass is what everyone is wearing, ten years from now, people will still remember the Google Glass as a promising, ground-breaking project.  Are you familiar with the work on user interfaces at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Centre?  (Xerox PARC)  That was over 30 years ago, but those in the know still honor the excellent work there, even if the uninitiated attribute the Apple Macintosh's use of a pointy-clicky mouse to their own design.
 * Sometimes the failure, or apparent failure, of a first attempt, results in the second attempt being even more successful than if the first attempt hadn't failed. Who knows, maybe Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, won't catch up, and Google's second attempt will transcend the first attempt.  In that case, if she actually played a role in the product being shelved, it wouldn't be a negative.
 * Way back when heroic airline pilot Sully Sullenberger managed his heroic landing on the Hudson River, there were a dozen or so very dogged contributors who tried to get his article deleted as an instance of a BLP1E. I spent a couple of hours searching for references that established that Sullenberger had measured up to our notability criteria, prior his heroic landing.  It took hours to winnow through the copious references google tossed up to her heroic landing, and find the few, but sufficient references that established pre-existing notability.  Ms Rosenberg is in the same position -- there is so much coverage of her WRT the affair that it would drown out references that established pre-existing notability.  However, I think that even if the closing administrator doesn't ignore the non-policy compliant nature of the delete arguments, new references to Ms Rosenberg will emerge, as her career progresses.
 * As for her being a "home-wrecker", why doesn't the responsibility lie on Brin?
 * I am surprised to read you call her comments racist. I was sure that her comment was a joke, not to be taken the least bit seriously.  I found her YouTube video quite funny.  And I thought her comment being a "chew" was funny too.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Contributing to the failure of Google Glass would be notable if it were in a reliable source. I would be glad to add that to the article in a neuteal tone if you provide the source. A tabloid article about anonymous posters saying she "slept her way to the top" does not establish her notability, and I have to second Geo Swan on the question of who is the homewrecker. If we anonymously post these comments online and they are picked up by a tabloid, maybe we can add it to his article. In the meantime a Google division marketing director who contributes to the failure of a product is newsworthy at the cost of this development and its noteworthiness (Glass). I suspct there are good sources on ths area, Wired level. MicroPaLeo (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to either Google Glass, Sergey Brin, or both. No significant coverage except for WP:ONEEVENT and personal-life fodder. Agree with the assessment of WP:NOTTABLOID. Her 15 minutes does not confer encyclopedic notability on her own, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC) She does have coverage so I'm not really sure at this point. Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First in the news in 2013 and still in the mainstream news (New York Times) in 2015 isn't 15 minutes and it isn't even 15 months. Perhaps you'd like to recalculate how many minutes that was.  The Dissident Aggressor 07:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be mean about this, but I think this merge suggestion is an example of a fundamental problem with the urge to merge articles on topics that can stand on their own. Specifically User:Softlavender has suggested merging, but has suggested multiple target articles to which this article should be merged.  So far as I am concerned any AFD where multiple merge targets are suggested should ring warning bells that the topic really does merit a standalone article after all.  Ideally, our main coverage of a topic should be in a single article.  Other articles should provide just enough coverage of the topic to provide context near where they link to the main article on the topic -- enough so the reader knows what they will be getting into .  When we allow multiple articles to each have meaningful coverage of a peripheral topic we open ourselves up to a maintenance nightmare.  To take Ms Rosenberg as an example, suppose we agreed she did not merit a standalone article, but we made sure all the information about her, scattered in the other articles that were related to the topic of Amanda Rosenberg started off being consistent, entropy being what it is, that scattered coverage would grow inconsistent, or even contradictory.   In my opinion, any topic worthy of a wikilink is probably worthy of a standalone article.   An additional problem with merging the information about Ms Rosenberg into either Google Glass or Sergey Brin is that some of the worthwhile information in the article about her, like where she went to University, would be considered off-topic in the related article.  And, in this case, as with almost every AFD I have come across where someone suggested multiple merge targets, the information that would end up being considered "offtopic" differs, depending on which target article the closing administrator rules it should be merged to.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Further to User:Softlavender's suggestion of merging to multiple related articles. SL suggested merging to Google Glass, when that article doesn't currently say anything about Ms Rosenberg.  It merely contains a link in the "see also" section.  No offense, but this causes me to question how much serious thought was put into this suggestion.  The article on Hugo Barra did not contain any coverage of his relationship with Ms Rosenberg.  I added some coverage.  I'd like to read SL's explanation as to why he or she recommended merging to the Brin article, but not the Barra article, or even the article on Anne Wojcicki.  The Google romantic triangle of 2013 is related to the article on the Google Glass product, and to all four principals.  It might be best if all the articles had only enough coverage of the affair to provide context for readers to the link where the details were discussed.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The New York Times piece includes only a passing mention of her. That Daily Mail piece is gossip garbage. And so on. I see no significant coverage in reliable sources of her as a person that can provide the basis for a BLP. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- After spending some time looking at the references about her I think Ms Rosenberg would meet our criteria for inclusion, even if she hadn't had affairs with any other Google executives. She is a talented woman in a relatively senior position in a field where senior females are rare.  Some articles wrote about her, in that context alone.  As I looked at those references I considered adding more, but frankly, I thought the article already clearly established that she measured up to our inclusion criteria.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WRT WP:BLP1E -- very few of the individuals here who have standalone articles devoted to them have measured up to our inclusion criteria due to a single event. For almost all of our biographical articles separate events each contribute to a cumulative notability.  The article mentioned Rosenberg attended Marlborough College, which I had never heard of.  I googled "Marlborough College" "Amanda Rosenberg"] -- and found it is a very expensive and exclusive UK public school.  The Telegraph (UK) has characterized it as a "seed bed for grooming alpha consorts", listing eleven high-profile grads, talented in their own right, but best known for who they were romantically paired with.  That list of grads included Rosenberg, the youngest on the list, and:
 * 1) Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge;
 * 2) Pippa Middleton;
 * 3) Princess Eugenie of York;
 * 4) Samantha Cameron, award winning fashion designer and wife of PM David Cameron;
 * 5) Frances Osborne, author and wife of George Osborne the UK Chancellor of Exchequer;
 * 6) Sally Bercow, reality show Big Brother UK participant, and wife of the UK Speaker John Bercow;
 * 7) Georgina Chapman, actress and wife of a notable Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein;
 * 8) Amanda Harlech, "long-term partner of Jeremy Paxman";
 * Attending the same small school as other famous people does not convey notability all by itself. The school has graduated about 3600 young women since they became eligible to attend, in 1969.  Merely being listed on a list of all those 3600 young women would not convey very much notability.  But a notable publication elected to name her on a list of less than 0.3 percent of the school's grads.  I suggest this establishes yet another "event", freeing her of the stigma of a "one event" accusation.  I see it as an exclusive list, conveying significant notability.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The school she attended is not a valid AfD argument for inclusion, neither is "She is a talented woman in a relatively senior position in a field where senior females are rare." Nor is it true that "Some articles wrote about her, in that context alone." She has some coverage because of her personal life, and some passing mentions because of the "OK Glass", or the combination of the two (all mentions anywhere are because she is good gossip fodder}. But there is no indication anywhere that she would have merited coverage simply for being "a talented woman in a relatively senior position in a field where senior females are rare." In fact, females are not rare in marketing positions, tech or otherwise, and there are plenty of women in senior positions at Google, far more senior than Rosenberg; they don't get articles for that. Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All those individual articles of media coverage add up to easily pass WP:GNG in total.  We've got folks saying she's only famous for 1 event, then folks saying that her sustained media presence for 2 years doesn't add up to WP:GNG.  At the end, she isn't WP:BLP1E and she easily passes WP:GNG.    It's clear folks just don't like it.     The Dissident Aggressor 14:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User talk:Softlavender your reply here starts of with a typical "strawman" response. Rather than reply to the substance of my counter-argument, you invented a different, but similar, and easier to refute argument.  Please understand that KNOWINGLY using a strawman argument is seen by many as deceitful and a breach of our policies on civility and collegiality.  I am going to assume that your response only gives the appearance of you employing a strawman response, and that, for some reason, you didn't make the effort to actually read what I wrote.  Everyone agrees that merely attending a notable school doesn't make its alumnae notable.  Something like 3600 young women graduated from Marlborough.  Several newspapers reported that female graduates of Marlborough were wildly disproportionately represented among the wives of highly placed men.  The Telegraph selected eleven women as the archetypical examples of this phenomenon.  That list included two princesses, the wives of two most senior UK cabinet members, and Ms Rosenberg.   This is the phenomenon you should be addressing.  Verifiable and authoritative sources felt she met their criteria for notability, so that they didn't leave her in the group of 3589 unnamed female grads of Marlborough.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is a clear violation of WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV etc. Take, for example, the section entitled "Race Relations", consisting of the sentence "Rosenberg described herself as being a member of the "master race that is the Chinese Jew or Chew."[6][14]" Should be immediately deleated.  There are references in the cited articles that allude to an 'internet profile' where she apparently used some poor taste in describing her background, but they are taken out of context and given wildly undue weight to their coverage in the press (nonexistent).  This is an overwhelmingly negative article clearly written by someone with an agenda, neither neutral nor encyclopedic.  Aside from the undue weight, etc., the article is very poorly written and gossip oriented.  That said, the topic is one that was noteworthy and covered by reliable sources; that does not mean that this horribly written attempt should meet Wikipedia's standards.Wintertanager (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that this editor has few recent edits (last 9 months) outside of Rosenberg's ex-boyfriend, Hugo Barra (as the article creator) his employer Xiaomi (where s/he whitewashed Rosenberg's info out and one other article.   Most likely a paid editor with a clear connection to Barra.  The Dissident Aggressor 22:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, no that is not the case at all and I resent the unsubstantiated allegation. I don't appreciate your attempt to silence another user bringing up completely fair and reasonable issues with your page.  I am not the one who flagged this page for speedy deletion, and I don't like being warned to 'Stop' by you on my personal page.  I don't want or need to be bullied.  If I have said or done something incorrectly, give me the benefit of the doubt and I will reciprocate.  I am judicial and fair in my assessments.  I believe, for instance, that this subject warrants neutral and encyclopedic coverage in Wikipedia.  I also believe that this article falls far out of the standard of Wikipedia's biography of living persons, gives undue weight to numerous issues, and is poorly written.  If you feel I am biased because I contributed to Hugo Barra's entry (and hence know a great deal about and am interested in this topic), then I am happily not to make any edits of any kind and let others decide in the spirit of Wikipedia.  That said, don't try and silence or bully me; I don't appreciate it one bit.  Wintertanager (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody appreciates you whitewashing Wikipedia for your clients or buddies. Please review WP:COI. The Dissident Aggressor 23:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm doing no such thing, thank you very much. No one appreciates you writing irresponsible articles below the standards and failing the mission of what wikipedia is intended.  This is a living person - understand that she is of public noteworthiness but we have a responsibility to create a neutral, encyclopedic perspective and this, sir, ain't it. Wintertanager (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So your beef is that we shouldn't publish notable quotes by the woman? Nobody is making them up and they're presented in pretty much the same context as all of the articles that reported them.   You could publish the full quote but I don't think it changes the context one bit.    Publicly talking about the existence of a master race is pretty damn significant.   Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and they have been supplied.  These quotes have been published by numerous reliable sources.  The Irish Independent (a fully reliable source cited) is Ireland's most widely distributed newspaper and is one of 4 sources supplied - all of which present pretty much the same context.  The Dissident Aggressor 00:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me give you an example of a NPOV for this very subject. In Sergei Brin's wikipedia entry, the Amanda Rosenberg relationship is described as follows "According to the New York Times, Brin left his wife after he started having an affair with a subordinate employee, Amanda Rosenberg[24] which caused a major rift between Brin and co-founder Larry Page because he viewed their relationship as an ethical issue.[4]"  That, to me, delivers relevant information in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, providing a reputable source for the reader to dive further.  Contrast that with the Xiaomi entry (which you just restored, congrats to you):  'Barra has declined to comment on the unfortunate timing of the thorny situation regarding the Google relationships'.  Using words like 'unfortunate' and 'thorny' are neither neutral nor encyclopedic, distorting the presentation of facts in a manner that unduly biases them to the reader.  Wikipedia has tons of explicit recommendations about this, particularly for living persons.  When you make a section entitled 'Race Relations', it unduly elevates anything within it above and beyond whatever source from which it originated.  It makes her seem blatantly racist, which I think is a huge distortion of the facts and hardly neutral.  You seem very keen to identify someone who 'whitewashes' in your words, when I think the real problem in Wikipedia is editors like you who seem to love to paint as unflattering a portrait as possible without any regard for that person's rights.  Report the facts, report what is relevant and newsworthy, and report it in a neutral tone.  I think that is a very reasonable position; sorry that you seem so vitriolic, sophomorically so, in condemning a perfectly warranted point of view. Wintertanager (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed what I believe is the objectionable language from Xiaomi and agree that it was inflammatory. It wasn't my language and unfortunately we got some bath water back with the baby.   The Dissident Aggressor 01:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Wintertanager I think the closing administrator should discount your opinion, on the grounds that your justifications for deletion aren't valid grounds for deletion.


 * Do you understand that WP:UNDUE expands to WP:NPOV?  That you cited both suggests you aren't really familiar with NPOV.


 * The policy on the neutral point of view does not say articles that contain passages that do not comply with our idea of neutrality should be deleted. Rather, just like the on policy original research, it says that those with a concern over passages they think do not comply with the policies should be removed or rewritten.


 * So, the obligation these policies places on individudals, like yourself, who have a concern, is to either try to fix the passage that triggered their concern themselves, or to clearly explain their concern, preferably on the talk page.


 * With regard to BLP, administrators are authorized to delete articles that are clearly "attack articles", on sight. But you aren't claiming this is an "attack article", are you?


 * If all you are claiming is that Ms Rosenberg is a case of the ambiguous definition of a person known only for a single event, then I think you should have said THAT. DissidentAgressor and I both explained why we didn't think BLP1E applies.  If you are claiming BLP1E I am disappointed that you didn't choose to respond to our explanations as to why BLP1E doesn't apply.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Gene93k Thank you for your kind suggestion to discount my opinion. I'm getting used to that around here!  I am familiar with NPOV, and bring up undue weight in particular because I think it is in gross violation here.  To answer your questions:  you say 'those with a concern over passages they think do not comply with the policies should be removed or rewritten.'  That is exactly what I attempted to do - remove a portion of a biography of a living person that I felt was not NPOV and carried undue weight in the article relative to its significance in the sourced article.  Now, when I attempted to do that, I received a threatening message on my page from the author, The Dissident Aggressor, telling me that I should 'Stop' and that my actions were equivalent to 'vandalism', and that I had 'whitewashed' an entry for Hugo Barra (that I'd spent hours working on, researching, carefully crafting sentences in accordance with WP's goals, etc.).  Having received said message, I decided to refrain from making changes to the page because if there is even a hint of a conflict of interest (i.e.; I am the author of Hugo Barra's page), it does not seem correct for me to be the one editing the page.  However, if not me, then someone should, because this page has multiple issues.  You say 'But you aren't claiming this is an "attack article", are you?'  Uh, yes, I am!!!  I most certainly am.  I believe the structure, tone, and content of this article constitute an attack on a living person and should either be deleted or sternly rewritten.  Who knows, I may be wrong!  But when I read this page, it doesn't appear to neutrally represent events of public interest.  It follows that old trick of using references to justify undue weight and tone in writing.  I am happy to give numerous examples, and I'd be even happier to edit the page myself, but that doesn't appear to be an option considering the extent to which I have been bullied (Don't appreciate that one bit).  You say, 'So, the obligation these policies places on individudals, like yourself, who have a concern, is to either try to fix the passage that triggered their concern themselves, or to clearly explain their concern, preferably on the talk page.'  Okay, I am now doing that.  I have explained why I am not editing the page, and will now go into more detail about the issues and concerns I have.Wintertanager (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To continue, here are a few issues. The page begins innocuously with 'Education'.  It states that Roesenberg attended Marlborough College, 'an exclusive and expensive British Public School' for which 'Annual fees for boarders, like Rosenberg, were $48,000 per year, which happens to be "seed bed for grooming alpha consorts",'  It is a very unflattering, selectively negative portrait that could be summed up as 'Amanda Rosenberg is a rich private school girl groomed to be an alpha consort'.  I don't think that is encyclopedic or relevant, is tacitly sexist, and reads like a tabloid.  (The sentences, incidently, are poorly constructed; it seems to have been written in a hurry).
 * The article continues with her career. After one sentence describing her position, we read 'After the story of her affair with Brin became public, she was transferred "out from under his supervision."[5]'  That seems out of context - what happened before then?   This section focuses only on her having an affair, except to add a quote describing Rosenberg as a "style-savvy hipster" - “My muse Amanda looking great in the frames I designed for her,”.  So now we have a rich private school girl groomed for an alpha consort, a shallow, style-savvy hipster whose career consists of an affair.  What I'm driving at is the tacit message the structure and tone of the article presents:  a negative, unflattering portrayal that reads like a tabloid.  As a reader I have no idea who she is or what significance she had of public interest.  We then conclude with the 'Personal Life' section, that describes Rosenberg's 'two overlapping romantic relationships after she started working at Google.' that were said to 'have made other employees uncomfortable.'  (Why do we return to this topic here?)  That's literally it - no wait!  We then conclude with her describing herself as part of a 'master race that is the Chinese Jew or Chew'.  No context with that bombshell, nothing.  So now she's racist on top of it all.  About as utterly negative as one could get - I actually don't think I could have pulled anything more negative out of the numerous articles than what is presented on this page - nicely done.  It is literally a summary of the most negative aspects of the press she has received.  I believe in a case such as this (involving an affair, etc.), particular care must be taken to present the issues neutrally (none has been taken here), to protect the person's rights, to present the info fairly, etc.  I actually do think she is a noteworthy enough person to warrant an entry, but that entry needs to be neutral and encyclopedic, and this absolutely is not.  It is a great example, again, of using 'references' to veil an incredibly negative portrayal that in no way represents her public noteworthiness (indeed, after reading, one knows virtually nothing about the actual story).  I think, on these grounds, it should be removed, but defer to other editors to make that decision.  Respectfully, Wintertanager (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but if you "...actually do think she is a noteworthy enough person to warrant an entry..." why shouldn't the rest of us regard this as a "keep"? I think if you ask other contributors, they will confirm for you that no one, not even Jimbo Wales, gets to say, "I think this topic is notable, but I will only agree to its continued inclusion in the wikipedia if my favorite version is the one that is kept."  Geo Swan (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete If there is an article that violates the not tabloid policy, this is it. Too much of the article is gossipy and tabloid to have any place in Wikipedia. She may be worth mentioning in the article on Binn, but not in a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To support my view, the NYT only mentions Rosenberg in one paragraph, and the only public action it attributes to her is organizing the Diane von Furstenberg fashion show. I am sure that "helping" to organize one fashion show as a marketing director does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but do you think cherry-picking a single reference, when the article cites something like a dozen references, is a valid, policy compliant reason for deletion? Don't some of the other references cover Ms Rosenberg in great detail?  Geo Swan (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - it doesn't really matter why someone came to the public's attention, what matters is the quality of coverage afterwards. Here there are several real biographical articles (e.g. IBT) which establishes notability. The tone/tabloid issues can be fixed via editing - its not like its impossible to say "person X attracted attention for dating person Y" in a neutral manner. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep several sources suggest she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep because of her prominent relationship with Google Glass but DELETE all the gossipy crap about "her relationships attracting attention" etc. That is not noteworthy. The Daily Fail should be avoided at all costs, but Vanity Fair and IBT are decent. Wikimandia (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I didn't realize the Google Glass project was DOA as it is. Wikimandia (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't dead. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Wikimandia, no one is working on the Manhattan Project, or the Pharonic Pyramids right now either. Are you suggesting we should have started to delete content on those projects, if the wikipedia had been around then, once work on them was suspended?
 * I don't think you advanced a policy compliant argument for deletion, and I believe your delete opinion should be ignored. Geo Swan (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Geo Swan, the ONLY reason I thought Amanda Rosenberg was just barely notable was for coining the phrase "OK Glass" combined with being a familiar "face" in marketing the device. However, Google Glass is dead as it is (by which I mean the latest is they dumped everyone on the project and are starting over again from scratch); therefore, that phrase is not going to become part of the popular lexicon. "OK Glass" as a beta command phrase is barely worth a sentence in the article ABOUT Google Glass itself, except for the complaints that it limited the usability of the product by people with speech problems who couldn't say it. Her lasting contribution to Google Glass being non-existent, Amanda Rosenberg does not deserve a Wikipedia article until she actual does something notable. Being someone whose "relationships have attracted attention" does not meet the basic definition of notability. Wikimandia (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * From a purely computer science/user-interface point of view, surely just coining the memorable term is notable whether the project was mass-marketed, or wasn't? If Apple brings out the first mass-market wearable computer, they will either use "OK Apple Glass", or they will use something else.  Either way the term she coined will be re-visited.
 * I offered the example of Karl Marx love-child, above. High profile affairs are, sometimes, trivial and truly beneath notice.  But Karl Marx love-child had a real effect on politics, just as the Brin-Barra-Rosenberg love triangle is said to have had a real effect on commerce.  Even if it didn't shelve the Google Glass project, high profile commentators speculated about whether it did.  That a billion dollars in future earnings might be involved that lifts appropriately neutrally written coverage from trivial tabloid-fodder to material we should cover.
 * Are you aware that individuals who strongly favored merge or delete made many excisions that had the effect of obfuscating that Ms Rosenberg was not an instance of BLP1E? Geo Swan (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, coining a phrase that never entered the mass lexicon is not notable. It's not even a memorable term particularly, I vaguely recalled it. If it itself was such a memorable term than it probably would be deserving of its own Wikipedia article instead of just being a redirect to the product article. Additionally, Google has not "shelved" the product - as I already explained, when I said the product is "dead as is" I meant it's being completely reworked according to reports (See Google Glass article which includes some updates I added after researching the current status of the product). Considering the complaints about the vocal command being problematic for speech-impaired people, future editions likely will not rely on/will not market itself on a single command phrase. The reason it is being completely redesigned from scratch is because of the many, many technological bugs, limitations and general suckiness of the prototype, not because of Amanda Rosenberg, who only worked in marketing and had nothing to do with the functionality of the product. And the idea that Apple will bring out its own product and call it "Apple Glass", much less use the hot phrase "OK Apple Glass", is downright ludicrous. I'm sure whatever "excisions" were made were because they did not belong in a BLP. Once again please read WP:BLP to refresh yourself on why writing about living people is not the same as writing about dead people. Wikimandia (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You say you researched it, and you reached the conclusion the project is "dead as is", not shelved, but "dead as is". May I remind that there are projects that never made a dime, and yet are very important from a historical point of view.  As I pointed out already, the work of Alan Kay and his colleagues at Xerox PARC was extremely significant, and it does not matter that they never earned a dime for Xerox.
 * You wrote: "If it itself was such a memorable term than it probably would be deserving of its own Wikipedia article instead of just being a redirect to the product article." Wow that is sure an example of "all or nothing" thinking.  I want you to stop, and think, for a minute, on how we calculate the notabilty of articles, in general, and how we calculate the notabilty of individuals.
 * We have some exceptional rules, to try to ensure that we have complete coverage of certain classes of individual -- like those awarded the Victoria Cross. Special purpose notability guidelines supercede the GNG and BLP1E.  An individual who is awarded their nation's very highest bravery medal have always been considered notable, even if they are only known for one event, even if we know almost nothing aout them, except they were awarded this medal.
 * But for 99.x percent of individuals it takes adding up more than one notability factor to conclude an individual measured up to our minimum notability criteria.
 * No one is claiming that coining "OK Glass" establishes Ms Rosenberg's notability, all by itself. But, without regard to your personal opinion that it confers zero notability, many different newspapers independently credit her with coining the term.  And because multiple RS independently credit her, that makes it notable.  Even if some genuine experts in human factors went on record and asserted her coining the term was trivial, her coining the term would still convey some notability, because RS had gone on record crediting her.  But that is not the situation here, is it?  Here we have you -- a non RS -- saying it was trivial.  And here, sorry, because you are a non-RS, complying with policy absolutely requires you to ignore your personal opinion.  Real RS thought it was significant enough for them to spend newspaper column inches, and this conveys notability.
 * You wrote: "The reason it is being completely redesigned from scratch is because of the many, many technological bugs, limitations and general suckiness of the prototype, not because of Amanda Rosenberg, who only worked in marketing and had nothing to do with the functionality of the product." As above, no offense, but you are not an RS.  Your personal opinion should play zero role here.  WP:VER says "verifiability, not truth".  Your personal opinion may have personally convinced me, if we were discussing the real truth over a beer.  There may be RS that agree with parts of your opinion.  (I doubt any RS would say the product has "General Suckiness".) Nevertheless, you have looked at the references, and you know that RS do contain the opinion that news of the affair played a significant role in Google's change of plans with regard to the project.
 * Please make a greater effort to read what those you disagree with wrote. Please make a greater effort to respond to what those you disagree with actually wrote.  You wrote: "... the idea that Apple will bring out its own product and call it "Apple Glass", much less use the hot phrase "OK Apple Glass",  is downright ludicrous."  That someone will bring out a wearable computer is not "downright ludicrous".  When they do that product will have a user interface.  That interface will be compared with the historic Google Glass interface.  Covering the historic Google Glass interface, in appropriate articles, is not "downright ludicrous", it is good, policy-compliant contributions of encyclopedic content.
 * You wrote: "I'm sure whatever "excisions" were made were because they did not belong in a BLP." If the excised passages were genuine lapses from policy those making the excisions should have been able to explain exactly how they thought those passages lapsed from policy.  But they didn't do so.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Yikes -- if there was ever a WP:NOTTABLOID candidate, this is it. There's nothing in this article demonstrating any notability at all, and it's dominated by her love life.  Since when did Wikipedia turn into E! Online?  Nha Trang  Allons! 18:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT: Other editors have valiantly struggled to remove the puff, and all that remains is fluff. Pax 04:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's because there's nothing there except fluff. I tried myself and gave up - there's just nothing to write about. Wikimandia (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Too true. MicroPaLeo (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Seems to be WP:NOTTABLOID or WP:BLP1E, but not pass WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with TNT comment above, appears to have contained a lot of malice towards this woman, and it seems not right under BLP notices to maintain this even in an archive. MicroPaLeo (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

AFD References
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 07:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 07:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. <span style="background: turquoise;font-family: 'Segoe Script', 'Comic Sans MS';">(t)  Josve05a  (c) 07:39, 25 February 2015 (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.