Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anca Mosoiu


 * 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   keep. WP:N carries far more weight than a subjective judgement of who should be notable. That's a deathtrap, stay out of it ;) Wily D 09:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Anca Mosoiu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. Laudable though her efforts may be, this individual has done nothing remotely suggesting encyclopedic notability. She set up an office three years ago &mdash; six employees in two rooms, from what I can tell &mdash; and that's basically it.

The coverage quoted here is woefully inadequate: three puff pieces in local papers. One of them barely mentions her and is about her future plans. Another focuses on the company, a third on her, and both are typical local news human interest stories, not something normally noticed by an encyclopedia. A few phrases will illustrate the tone of these pieces: "Welcome to Tech Liminal"; "Tech Liminal is not only a coworking space, it’s also a tech consulting firm"; "Mosoiu is not the only one who shares her tech knowledge in these workshops"; "Hometown Hero"; "Mosoiu escaped the bruising of the 2000 tech bust, but instead of riding the lucrative crest of the newest tech boom, she decided to follow her dream to create a space where people could experience a tech community that did not exist for freelancers".

And as for the claim that "She is credited with helping to build the tech industry in Oakland": first, she is actually credited with "bringing together the people who want to ... lay the groundwork to build a much-needed tech industry in Oakland". And second, so what? I'm sure there are individuals who "brought together the people who wanted to lay the groundwork to build a much-needed refrigerator industry in Toledo", or a much-needed carpet industry in Omaha, or a much-needed furniture industry in Topeka, or perhaps a much-needed pencil industry in Santa Clara, but that doesn't strike me as a particularly encyclopedic attribute, particularly when the only source conveying this information is a glowing profile in a local paper. - Biruitorul Talk 20:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment How do you get past the three references that could support WP:GNG. Go   Phightins  !  20:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The hometown hero article seems credible. Go   Phightins  !  20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to "get past" anything, but a couple of promotional pieces in local papers do not automatically make for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". By that standard, anyone who has founded a small business that's gotten the attention of the local paper a couple of times is entitled to a place in an encyclopedia. - Biruitorul Talk 23:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Go   Phightins  !  02:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks like she passes WP:GNG and the creator has added more citations. Nice to see a woman tech activist article getting deleted during Ada Lovelace Day LOL. SarahStierch (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What day it is is irrelevant, and the subject's sex and profession are relevant only insofar as reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy have commented on their relevance. Unfortunately, the added citations are more of the same: either wholly unacceptable (blogs, event announcements and forum posts) or trivia (passing mention in a culinary feature on rose hips (!), passing mention on a radio program and a photographic slide show that I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove. - Biruitorul Talk 23:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as per SarahStierch. Subject gets excellent press in San Francisco newspapers and TV. Web tech is an important industry.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing the importance of web tech, but the encyclopedic merit (or lack thereof) of one Anca Mosoiu. When the San Francisco Chronicle runs an unbiased article on her, that will be a surer sign of notability. And before you reply that WP:GNG doesn't mandate coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle &mdash; yes, that's true, but the converse is also true, namely that laudatory articles in minor local papers do not always translate into encyclopedic merit. - Biruitorul Talk 23:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure the Oakland Tribune established in 1874 is the major newspaper of Oakland, California "the third largest city in the San Francisco Bay Area, the eighth-largest city in the state, and the 47th-largest city in the U.S. with a population of 395,817"heather walls (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * San Jose is the largest city of the Bay area, and its only full-fledged newspaper is the Mercury News. Has been that way pretty much forever. Their coverage area includes Silicon Valley; by and large they are the newspaper of the valley. I have no idea why nom thinks they would go around pushing non-notable people in their pages. Churn and change (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Mercury News just ran a photo gallery on her, which we shouldn't even be citing (for lack of depth). The gallery mirrors a piece in the Tribune (a sister paper), part of a larger series on local figures found inspiring by the paper's reporters. Should all these individuals get Wikipedia biographies? - Biruitorul Talk 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Yaron K. (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The San Jose Mercury News has the fifth largest circulation in the US (twice that of the Chronicle) and the Oakland Tribune has a decent-size subscriber base. With CBS and the other lesser sources, that's enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mercury News or not, I would suggest a photo gallery hardly counts as "significant coverage". - Biruitorul Talk 04:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. San Jose Mercury News and Oakland Tribune are WP:RS as per above; the SJ Merc is a go-to resource for tech industry news. Coverage of a female tech startup is a contribution to WP:CSB. Also, given the current economic situation in the US, we would do well to consider implementing notability standards that encourage articles on successful entrepreneurship which promotes local economic development. This article is not simply an instance of an isolated small business that employs six people. Running a co-working operation creates conditions and a space for others to network and grow their businesses as well. Djembayz (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Before raising the "systemic bias" canard (which it usually is), do you have any evidence to suggest that our coverage of notable female tech startups is less than their weight in the real world?
 * For one, this isn't about a startup. And of course this question is nearly impossible to answer without real extensive research, but I did a quick reading of this list of computer scientists that I chose randomly. I found approximately 25 women with articles out of more than 300 people. Personally I would lean toward yes, there is a bias. heather walls (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree more investigation is needed, but your methodology is flawed, as Wikipedia reflects reality rather than creating its own. If you look at an outside list of the top computer scientists, say this one, you will find (at least I found) ten women among the top 165 computer scientists. Of these, nine have articles, which isn't bad at all. A tenth (Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann) was deleted for copyright problems, but I would fully support recreating that article, since the notability of Professor Magnenat-Thalmann, unlike that of this article's subject, is immediately obvious without bending any standards. - Biruitorul Talk 14:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As for what you suggest, please feel free to bring that up at the discussion page of WP:N, where I will vigorously object to the notion that an encyclopedic biography is earned by someone who's run a six-employee business for three years and has garnered a few puff pieces detailing said business, no matter how many clients it serves and no matter what economic conditions happen to be prevailing in its vicinity. - Biruitorul Talk 04:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Mercury News, Oakland Tribune and San Francisco Examiner are all major newspapers of the Bay area, read by a whole lot of people here, and carrying a whole lot of clout; not "local" papers whose coverage we can ignore. Meets WP:GNG with the coverage in independent and reliable sources. Churn and change (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Even if the Oakland Tribune is more than just a local paper (let's grant that for argument's sake), it does not necessarily follow that all its coverage is equally pertinent in scope. The same goes for the New York Times, even: would anyone say Robin Lane should get a Wikipedia biography? As to how we choose what to use and what not to, this is not a matter of editors' POV, but simply of separating promotional pieces from hard news.
 * I'd like to ask those opting to keep the article if they also see other "hometown heroes" named by the Oakland Tribune as worthy of encyclopedic biographies. I'm sure these are all valuable people, but it's one thing to do good (which the subject of this discussion has done) and quite another to rise to the WP:BIO threshold. I would suggest none of these people meet that criterion, Mosoiu included, even if they've been featured in a section that freely admits its mission goes beyond mere journalism: "Hometown Heroes celebrates people in the Bay Area who make a difference in their communities. In addition to highlighting remarkable individuals, the Hometown Heroes feature aims to encourage volunteerism, raise visibility of nonprofits and key causes in the area and create a spirit of giving". - Biruitorul Talk 04:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Let us check what WP:BIO says: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The Mercury News, Oakland Tribue, and SF Examiner are sources which are "reliable," "independent of each other", and "independent of the subject." These newspapers aren't neighborhood publications the way you put it. Coverage in the Mercury News matters for companies here because, well, it is the only newspaper around in the valley. If you are claiming they are creating notability in this case, maybe so; that isn't our issue. The question is if there is notability, whether created by newspapers or not. There is. If your beef is the newspapers shouldn't have covered this person, you should write a letter to the editors saying so; if you can get the papers to retract their articles, you can come back here and argue for deletion. Churn and change (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, , . Northamerica1000(talk) 05:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. If a piece is published in the editorial space of a publication (as distinguished from ad space), it's third-party reporting, regardless of what news style (breaking, analysis, features, opinion) it's written in. The attempt to characterize reporting as a "promotional piece" or "puff piece" is highly subjective on the editor's part (and from a misinformed perspective, since the NYT feature on Robin Lane is given as an example: that's still third-party reporting). We don't exclude features reporting in considering coverage for a BLP. Most artists and entertainers, for instance, will not be the subject of "hard news" coverage, but rather of features profiles, which are at any rate more likely to provide biographical data than a "news" brief on their DUI arrest. As for "local" as a way to disqualify a source, at a time when most old-school newspapers publish online and can be read anywhere in the world, what does that mean? A lot of the "delete" nomination seems based on whether Anca Mosoiu is important or unique, which doesn't determine notability. The issue is whether a critical mass of third-party sources (whether they're humanly interesting or not) provide enough information to generate an article written in an encyclopedic manner. I'm not sure that's the case, but let's make the argument correctly. (And BTW, the placing of the "not a vote" template in the middle of the discussion strikes me as bit overbearing.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you tell the POV of the newspaper articles covering the subject? If so, and if it's positive, then they are indeed promotional, and should be handled with caution. It debases the encyclopedia to pick out a phrase in a blog post on rose hips so we can pretend to legitimately call the subject a "tech guru".
 * Your point about artists has a hole in it. Yes, it's possible that much valuable information about a particular artist could be gleaned from a feature piece. However, before citing such an article can be considered, an artist first has to meet the non-trivial WP:ARTIST requirements. The artist must first have done something fairly big (had a serious exhibition, have had multiple professional reviews, etc) before qualifying for a biography here. With entrepreneurs, there's no such guideline, and so we are faced with the rather absurd option of keeping an article on a really quite insignificant figure (encyclopedically speaking, that's a legitimate label for someone who's run a six-employee business for three years) simply because feel-good/activist section of her local paper decided to run an article on her.
 * "Local" in this context means no relevance beyond the firm's employees and clients, the surrounding neighborhood and the reporter to happened to track down the subject. - Biruitorul Talk 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "not a vote" template is there because there was a post written, in an attempt to canvass users to come here, on the WikiWomen's Collaborative Facebook page, and possibly elsewhere. But feel free to move the template to elsewhere on the page. Yaron K. (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Although I'm not one to shriek "canvassing" when editors are simply trying to maximize the number of views represented, I'm also not keen on offsite canvassing, so the template seems appropriate. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For Sarah's post to be canvassing, one of two conditions has to be met: it has to be written non-neutrally, or it has to be aimed at a group biased on this topic. She has been careful about the neutrality part; assuming the women's collaborative would be non-neutral on this is judging them. I would say that reflects a biased belief they are here to push non-notable women-related articles at the cost of WP's encyclopedic mission. If one rejects that belief-based assumption, informing them of this Afd can no longer be considered canvassing. Churn and change (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I probably shouldn't have said it was canvassing, since I don't know. At the very least, it could be interpreted by someone reading it as canvassing, in which case the "not a vote" message would be helpful when they arrive at this page. Yaron K. (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. As per San Jose Mercury News and Oakland Tribune coverage. I don't find the argument convincing that a particular qualified source's coverage is not in-depth or significant enough to warrant notability since multiple qualified sources made the same decision to cover her.  I find it strange that some people are seriously arguing that newspapers covering major metropolitan areas don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable independent sources. Catavar (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To say that the Mercury News "covered" the subject is a bit of a stretch: they put up a photo gallery and repeated the "hometown hero" designation given to her by the Tribune (the two papers share the same owner, so it's not surprising). Indeed, the honest thing to do would be to just drop the Mercury News link, since a photo gallery isn't really citable and the information is covered elsewhere. As for the Tribune article: like I've suggested, while it's fine as a source in some cases, that doesn't imply every article they run is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia; there is such a thing as editorial judgment. (And no, I'm not using that as a synonym for "my POV"; presumably, everyone who reads newspapers and edits Wikipedia decides some things will be added and others not.) As I've pointed out, the section featuring Mosoiu is more activism than journalism &mdash; it "celebrates people in the Bay Area who make a difference in their communities" and "aims to encourage volunteerism, raise visibility of nonprofits and key causes in the area and create a spirit of giving". Just as we would never consider having an article about some high school teacher, some retired pharmacist or some lawyer-preservationist, so too it makes precious little sense to have a biography of some entrepreneur with a six-employee shop. A nice story, yes, but not one for an encyclopedia. - Biruitorul Talk 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Many reliable sources have shared owners, e.g., The Wall Street Journal and Fox News. It is normal to have multiple citations for the same information covered in multiple sources.  Plenty of Wikipedia articles cite sources that could be considered "activism" by this rather broad definition.  Notability criteria doesn't seem to include a minimum number of people employed by a subject's company.  I'm not familiar with any of these criteria normally being applied to eliminate reliable sources or judge notability. Catavar (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep merc/tribune coverage is significant, not trivial mentions, and KALW reference is also important.all are vital local reliable sources.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the WP:BASIC criteria of WP:BIO. The deletion rationales are unconvincing, being mostly based on the assumption that established news outlets are unreliable. Gobōnobō  + c 23:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Delete arguments seem based on subjective views of journalistic standards and importance rather than notability, which means having sufficient third-party sources regard the subject as "worthy of notice." My "keep" is weak because I'd like to see more sources (and someone needs to address the verification tags at once), but the sources do provide information that can be treated in an encyclopedic manner. Somehow, strenuous efforts must be made to exclude minor business leaders or activists—real-life people whose accomplishments have been deemed "worthy of notice" by third parties—because it might damage WP's credibility or "editorial judgment". And yet we allow vast swathes of articles to be devoted to embarrassingly detailed descriptions of the actions of fictional characters in TV shows, based on nothing more than a fan summarizing the primary source. It's ridiculous to consider the latter encyclopedic, and the former not. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2012 (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.