Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Toner


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Helen Toner

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:BLP1E - Notable for only a single WP:RECENT event, and references are only related to that event. She could be a line in OpenAI about the circumstances. Zim Zala Bim talk 04:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Only claim to viability notably is her membership in the board of OpenAI, but until recently that didn't generate any coverage and also no-one saw the need for an article. Now that she had left the board it seems clear that there won't be any further relevance other than this single event. 92.12.19.43 (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is now articles about her in The Guardian and Sydney Morning Herald among others. &mdash; fnielsen (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Technology, Australia,  and California.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Recently known during the OpenAI saga. Being part of a single event doesn't constitute a page on Wikipedia. – NirvanaTodayt@lk 21:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * This isn't about Recentism, the article is compliant with NPOV.
 * Guidelines for BLP notable for a single event may be found here.
 * "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:"
 * '''1) "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event."
 * Not met - reliable sources have covered her before this event, she was quite high profile in the EA community.
 * '''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."
 * -Also not met. Hasn't been a low profile individual since appointment to OpenAI board in 2021 and will certainly not remain low profile as time goes on
 * 3) "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented".
 * -Plainly not met.
 * For this argument to stand R.E. deletion all 3 of these should be fulfilled. 131.111.128.130 (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * -Plainly not met.
 * For this argument to stand R.E. deletion all 3 of these should be fulfilled. 131.111.128.130 (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think "recency bias" (sorry, I guess that's not a wikip policy or a deletion guidance principle) leads those who would delete to weigh the recent news activity as "obvious evidence" that she's otherwise non-notable. Finding more details about her work & writing the article to present the topic in a fulsome way will show that she is notable outside recent events. Her role in recent newsworthy events is also notable and worth covering, but should not be the "sole focus" of the article. --skakEL 15:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep There are other reasons for her notability; most of the article is not about the recent controversy. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * · She's one of the leaders at a major university's center studying an important social issue (impact of AI on society).
 * · The Recentism charge suggests that she wasn't notable before. If that were the case that would imply that OpenAI picked a random non-notable person to be on their board. Obviously, they wouldn't have just picked someone off the street; they picked her precisely because she *is* a notable figure in this area.
 * · Even re the Recentism charge: it's a major event in the history of an important issue, so for future historical reasons the page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalfrock (talk • contribs) 16:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Btw are there stats on how often article has been viewed? It might help decide how worthy of retention it is. Not the only measure, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burraron (talk • contribs) 18:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep She has received major coverage. Meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2023 (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.