Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine A. Fitzpatrick


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Catherine A. Fitzpatrick

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event : "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."

Her involvement in video games, her career and so forth - hardly sets her apart from the millions of other people who play Second Life, or the hundreds of thousands who work as translators around the world. The subject has been quoted - briefly - in two low-profile newspaper articles, one on Wired and the other in the New York Times. She was not of primary importance in either article. Both mentioned a number of individuals, and she, like the rest, was covered in only a small percentage of the total content. There have been many newspaper and magazine articles about Second Life over the last seven years, in which numerous players have been quoted; yet, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information, it would be inappropriate to create articles for everyone who has ever had anything to say about the subject in a newspaper or magazine.

There is already a Wikipedia article about Second Life. If anything, a "notable residents" section could be added to that article, and perhaps her name could be put into that section, although that might look rather like trivia and perhaps not be appropriate (and if so, is further justification for removing this writeup.) Second Life has a Wikia site as well, and she is listed there. As it stands, the rest of her biography is not supported by the notability requirements; there is just nothing that sets her apart as a translator or anything else in a way that is broadly interesting.

There is one final (and significant) matter, which is that the subject objects to her real life ("RL") information being "outed." This is based on the presumption of anonymity in Second Life; a user's RL name, gender, location, etc. are not normally revealed. This is an unusual case, as she deliberately gave her full name to a magazine and allowed them to photograph her. Nevertheless, on her own blog, she strenuously objects to the outing of her name and gender:

http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2005/11/not_bored_not_d.html

"Weedy Herbst, that vitriolic little busy-body on the forums, is quick to show up and viciously mock Cocoanut's naming of my RL name and outing of my RL gender. She completely forgets that this was not my wish last April, was not on this blog, was not in the game anywhere, and was not said inworld -- indeed only became known because of vicious stalkers trolling around year-old posts upon posts in old Herald articles and putting it together with other factoids they dug up. [...] I'd prefer that my RL information not be discussed and spread about. But because I was willing to go to the SLCC as my RL self with my SL avatar linked -- unlike Aimee Weber or even Weedy Herbst herself -- these facts were covered by the Herald." (Emphasis mine) HunsV (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I created this article because she is a prominent human rights activist and expert on the former Soviet Union, not because of her involvement with video games/virtual worlds. She has been an editor with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a major broadcaster, the Executive Director, a Program Director and the UN representative of the International League for Human Rights, and a research director with Human Rights Watch. She has translated a bunch of important books (like Boris Yeltsin, The Struggle for Russia) and published some herself. As far as her involvement with virtual worlds is concerned, it has been covered by Wired and the New York Times. See the article for sources. She's definitely not known for "one event", but as a prominent human rights activist over a period spanning three decades. Also, the claim to "anonymity" is nonsense, per this interview in the New York Times and this interview in Wired. Jasonobrian (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would being an editor with a radio station make someone notable? There are thousands of such people. There are TENS of thousands of people working with and for the UN - again, how is this notable? She translated some books - should everyone who works for Berlitz get a writeup? I simply do not see how any of this qualifies as encyclopedic content. The deletion debates contain plenty of DELETEs for things like middle schools, which - in the case of those that have been around for many decades, such as my own - are relevant in the lives of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. Yet, someone who has done things - good and wholesome things, certainly, but whom, like that middle school, doesn't stand out, because there are tons of examples of people who have done the exact same thing. Why would anyone who doesn't know her professionally or have an interest in griefing her in Second Life (read on...) find this information even remotely interesting? How is it useful to have any of it in an encyclopedia? Regarding anonymity, you really should read her blog. Whatever her motivations for giving these interviews, she seems to have ten gallons of vitriol for anyone who mentions her true identity and her Second Life identity in the same place, which should be perfectly obvious if you take a look at the blog entry I quoted. Now, just in case that wasn't enough evidence for you, take a look at this OTHER blog entry, which she made in February of this year:"'Before all this, Pathfinder played an outrageous part in outing my RL identity on the forums [...] Pathfinder, that zealous keeper of forums decorum who would later hasten to ban me without due process, let posts outing my RL gender and promising to link to the rest of my RL information with only an email, were allowed to languish for days, with no action. Finally, they were lazily ellided, and a policy never enforced very belatedly articulated -- that if information is not on the First Life profile of the avatar in SL, it is not fair game for discussion in forums and inworld.'"And - if that isn't enough for you - she harbors abject hatred for Wikipedia, considering it akin to the Ministry of Truth, and would probably blow a fuse if she realized you put an article about her on this site, linking her real and virtual identities together, and providing a large quantity of heretofore unknown information about her to countless people who enjoy harassing her in Second Life? (Again, documented perfectly well in her blog.) You are really not doing Wikipedia a favor by posting this, and you are not doing her a favor, either. HunsV (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I am the one who contested prod. There are two things to consider -a) she seems to have received coverage because of her role in SL b) Many of her translations have received multiple reviews in Reliable Sources. IMO taken together, she qualifies for inclusion as a notable author, who has some coverage for other things. And regarding the privacy concern - as Jasnobrian points out, she has given interviews before in media and only those should be used to source her biographical details.--Sodabottle (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Regardless of what HunsV may argue upthread, a person's reaction to a wikipedia article is not a valid reason to contest it. There are a few very simple rules in play here. Let's see..
 * Notability: Check, check, and double check. I've seen articles with less with no issues.
 * Verifiability: Check. The valid sources seem to check out.
 * POV: Check. Looks neutral and factual to me.
 * Article structure: Could do with some cleaning up, (maybe some wikify-tag is in order), but cleaning up != deleting. This is going to become hot-button as hell in the next few hours/days. TheGreatTK (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Subject of the article has posted about it on her blog. I strongly suggest locking the article down while this vote takes place (which I probably should not vote on, having tangled with her in the past in my own blogging capacity) as it *will* attract vandalism thanks to its current visibility. SJennings (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2010 (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.