Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Haruka Iwao


 * 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 no consensus. Very evenly split over whether this is covered by WP:BLP1E. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Emma Haruka Iwao

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP1E - nearly all the sources are about the recent calculation, which may be notable itself but does not confer notability for a biography. The rest do not appear to meet WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:BLP1E, the 1E being a trivial achievement. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC).
 * Keep she is mentioned on the page Approximations of Pi and Chronology of computation of π. She is the only person that the recent world record is attributed to. How is Iwao having a biography different to Fabrice Bellard, the 2009 record holder? Given the coverage Iwao has received, since I made the page on 14/03 (i.e. two days ago) it has received 5,139 views (https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Emma_Haruka_Iwao). Jesswade88 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know if Fabrice Bellard is notable, but that page does at least list some other awards and achievements that could make a claim to notability. Are there other awards or achievements here other than the calculation of pi that could establish her notability? Melcous (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fabrice Bellard is notable for any number of things. He not only did the computation, he developed some novel formulae for computing pi. And he's an absolute monster at cranking out major software proects: The tiny C compiler. PC emulator in a javascript that can boot Linux in a browser. The BPG graphics format. Qemu. 4G LTE cell phone base station on a software defined radio. The aforementioned Pi computation software. This is far more impressive and varied than someone who downloaded y-cruncher from Alexander Yee's website and ran it on a big computer. 209.209.238.189 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Minor Comment I can't resist mentioning that one of the things Bellard developed is Bellard's formula, which was used to verify Iwao's computation, according to the entry in Chronology of computation of π --99.238.172.169 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep If the task is awesome then the person who achieves it is notable IMO. This calc was expensive. She persuade people/company to put up the money and that she had the most efficient code etc. The refs cover not only this one task but also her longer interest in Pi approximations. This is an interesting applied maths person doing accessible maths with wide public interest and with multiple quality references. Victuallers (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep see https://www.google.com/search?q=Emma+Haruka+Iwao plenty of mentions in lots of reputable and independent news sources, big jump for her Guinness World Records feat which was "from 31 trillion digits, far past the previous record of 22 trillion" Duncan.Hull (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the references above are social media frippery, the others are non in-depth. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC).


 * Keep I find it strange that you say that all of the references are 'social media frippery' given that her work has had global coverage across most of the well-respected and well-recognised newspapers and news agencies in the world? There are very few people in the world who would have the powerful combination of knowledge or opportunity to do these calculations, and it is disappointing that her work is being diminished. There is more than one notable person on wikipedia who has 'only' done one thing, so I do not think this is a fair reason to propose deletion. Eolaíocht (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of references in the article to justify being kept. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with the proposer, WP:BLP1E is the most pertinent policy. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's hard to imagine a situation that fits WP:BLP1E more closely.  Coverage is fairly shallow, and is all in the context of this one event, which isn't even really notable enough to sustain its own article (although it certainly merits a mention in a few other places).  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 00:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete There is coverage at least 3 continents but it is not a case of good sources as there is plenty, but it seems to be only for this one event. There is nothing outside it. So WP:BLP1E applies exactly. I also think it is a case of WP:TOOSOON.   scope_creep Talk  13:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete A clear case of WP:BLP1E. Edwardx (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep BLP1E has been one of the most misunderstood and abused bits of policy in Wikipedia. In this case, we have it being misapplied to a public figure on the grounds that in the opinion of some Wikipedia editors, reliable sources are wrong to give this person coverage. Guinness World Records is wrong for conferring a record on this public figure. You're entitled to your opinion, but the key to how we make decisions is that we defer to the wisdom of sources. If the BBC, Guinness Records, NPR and so on, find this notable, then we follow suit, even if we disagree. Getting back to BLP1E, the policy is carefully written to explain that a series of boxes must be checked and only if every condition is met, then BLP1E's additional scrutiny applies. The key one here is low profile individual. This is your typical private citizen. Non-celebrity. Non-activist. Non-performer. Non-public-facing worker. A regular person, who had the spotlight thrust upon them, often because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They got caught up in a major news event, were interviewed on TV, and went back to their obscure life. Iwao is Google's public face here. Google put her out there, publicized her work. She stepped forward in front of the camera, as part of her job, to do this publicity. Put aside your personal opinions on whether that is worthy of your attention. The simple fact is that is shows this is a public figure, someone who works in the public eye. Therefore, does not check all the boxes of BLP1E.When BLP1E doesn't apply, you fall through to the more broad criteria, WP:BASIC, or simply WP:GNG. The quantity of coverage we see here, and the significance of a Guinness Record (i.e. WP:ANYBIO), are enough to meet those standards. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent rationale .  scope_creep Talk  11:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to give you credit for at least addressing the BLP1E concerns, which other keep voters haven't done. But I still have to disagree.  Simply doing some interviews, especially at the urging of your employer (are you going to risk losing your job by saying no?), doesn't even remotely mean that you're a public figure.  The three boxes of BLP1E are definitely met here.  "1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event."  I think this one's clear and not in any sort of dispute.  "2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. 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."  As I mentioned above, I don't even think the event itself warrants its own article, and I don't see how you can expect Iwao to not remain a low-profile individual.  This isn't someone who goes around as a public face of Google as part of their job.  This was a one-off event.  And "3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. [...] The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."  Again, this event doesn't seem particularly significant.  It's happened before and it'll happen again, and it's not something that has gotten or is going to get continuing coverage.  So yes, BLP1E applies, and I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone invoking it above didn't consider this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ”This isn't someone who goes around as a public face of Google as part of their job”. Really? Can you remind us again, what is her job? One that in no way involves her face appearing before the public? You don’t believe she played a significant role in this calculation? You don’t credit her with much more than being a bystander who got caught up in an event she did not cause? Who then is it who played a significant role here? —Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete If someone can come up with something else notable about her, by all means expand the article and keep it! But as I see it, she downloaded y-cruncher (which Alexander Yee wrote) and ran it on a big computer to compute 40% more digits of pi than the previous record holder.  There's nothing novel or creative about that.  It was perfectly clear the software was capable; she just had (via Google sponsorship) more hardware resources than the earlier record holders.  This warrants a one-paragraph mention in Chronology of computation of π and related articles, but in terms of notable achievements, that's a one-trick pony with a trick that's been done before.:
 * Do we have an article about Dovilio Nardi, baker of the world's biggest pizza? No, because it's a marginally notable achievement which does not suffice to make the achiever notable.  The Michael Fagan incident is the other side of the line, since a few other interesting related things happened to him.
 * But in this case, there's no WP:SUSTAINED interest. (I agree WP:LOWPROFILE does not apply, as she has sought out the attention.  But not every attention-seeker deserves a vanity page.) 209.209.238.189 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep According to WP:LOWPROFILE, A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. That is not the case here, and so WP:BLP1E does not apply. I could be convinced that a merge would be appropriate, but that doesn't have to be decided immediately. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I still can't agree with this assessment. There's no indication that she's sought out any attention.  Simply agreeing to be interviewed isn't enough. From the linked page:
 * This certainly wasn't any sort of ambush, but this is still low-profile stuff. Even if you don't accept that BLP1E applies, she doesn't pass WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO.  Running a program to do a computationally expensive task on hardware provided by your employer and then giving a few basic sound bites just isn't enough.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please define “low-profile stuff”. The policy applies to a low-profile person, not “stuff”. The stuff, the event, is high profile. You’re claiming she was a private citizen who found herself in the public eye by surprise, rather than attracting publicity as a consequence of her own agency. A random driver who gets caught in a bridge collapse has no agency. The guy who intentionally caused the collapse has agency. Appearing in a viral video by random chance, a bystander in the background, is low profile. Making and uploading a viral video is an act of agency, it gives oneself a public profile. Iwao did this thing. It wasn’t done to her. It didn’t happen to her. She made it happen.—Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PSEUDO. I am the unregistered user who flagged this originally. The substance of the article is:
 * I haven't gone through AfD in years, and I see that the pseudo-biography policy now has a section that sounds like it was written for this case:
 * And this is more or less what has occurred here. --99.238.172.169 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello 99.238.172.169. The article does not mention the date or place she was born nor her hobbies or family background. It details her education, which is relevant to her career and world record. I agree, there isn't much written about her - but there is rarely much detail written about women working in the tech industry (other than that they are women working in the tech industry). It seems peculiar to only use Wikipedia to try and get a page deleted - why not contribute to make the encyclopaedia better? Jesswade88 (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Relevant from a Google Cloud Development persepctive, I guess, but from the perspective of Chronology of computation of π, not so much. I think the parts I quoted are the bits that are relevant. As for my own contributions to Wikipedia, I don't see why they matter. But for the record I have sporadic contributions going back to just before 2003, just not from this IP address. Thank you for your interest. --99.238.172.169 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And this is more or less what has occurred here. --99.238.172.169 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello 99.238.172.169. The article does not mention the date or place she was born nor her hobbies or family background. It details her education, which is relevant to her career and world record. I agree, there isn't much written about her - but there is rarely much detail written about women working in the tech industry (other than that they are women working in the tech industry). It seems peculiar to only use Wikipedia to try and get a page deleted - why not contribute to make the encyclopaedia better? Jesswade88 (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Relevant from a Google Cloud Development persepctive, I guess, but from the perspective of Chronology of computation of π, not so much. I think the parts I quoted are the bits that are relevant. As for my own contributions to Wikipedia, I don't see why they matter. But for the record I have sporadic contributions going back to just before 2003, just not from this IP address. Thank you for your interest. --99.238.172.169 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I'm not seeing any valid reason to delete. WP:BLP1E applies only to people who are only notable for one event, usually an event that is itself notable enough for a standalone article (thus turning those articles into forks of each other). In this case, not only is 2019 record for calculation of pi unlikely to ever get its own article (and I don't see any other good merge target), but... If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event is contradicted by the fact that she was being profiled by Japanese computing webzines years before the event, even just on a quick Google search.[gihyo.jp/lifestyle/serial/01/it-study-meeting/0006] (And that doesn't include her multiple self-published books that presumably she wouldn't have kept writing if they didn't sell. Please note that I'm not saying any of these sources are useful for GNG, since one of them is an interview and the other is a summary of a presentation she made, along with those of several others.) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual seems highly unlikely, given Japan's propensity for immortalizing its own overseas innovators; the only way this could apply is if she actively came out and said "I don't want to be a public figure, please leave me alone and delete my Wikipedia article", which again seems unlikely given that she's been writing and publishing since she was a teenager. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented is (at least in the first part) slightly more compelling; none of the above "delete" !votes appear to have made the argument that this record is broken on a regular basis, and I don't know enough about the subject matter to say one way or the other. (Full disclosure: I'm here because I'm basically the only WIR member writing about Japanese women; I saw one other Japanese flag, clicked through, and saw it was a BLP of someone who recently did something that made her famous. If anything, this should make me biased in favour of deleting the article, for upholding our systemic bias against dead women relative to living women and Japanese women who lived in Japan as opposed to Japanese women who live in the US, Europe or Australia.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:49, 23 March 2019 (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.