Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Maher


 * 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. Unlikely to reach consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈  14:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Katherine Maher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails WP:BIO on almost every level, and is a perfect example of navel gazing in the Wikiverse. There are literally millions of "managers" out there in the world, and only a hand full of them would be notable. For the purposes of this nomination I am using this version of the article.

In determining notability, one needs multiple sources which discuss the person in length.


 * Source #1 - http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/02/25/the-new-westphalian-web/ - the information sourced is the byline bio. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made.
 * Source #2 - http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/04/15/katherine-maher-joins-foundation-chief-communications-officer/ - it's a blog post/press release by an organization which is not independent of the subject. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made.
 * Source #3 - https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083193.html - it's a mailing list post. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made.
 * Source #4 - http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/wikipedia-is-still-disrupting-after-15-years-1313225 - it's an interview with Katherine about Wikipedia, not about her. As a PR person, this is her job. PR people are not inherently notable. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made.
 * Source #5 - https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082470.html - it's a mailing list post by Lila Tretikov. It doesn't discuss Katherine at all. In a high quality article, which is what one aims for on Wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed to determine notability, and rightly so. No reason for an exception here to be made.

Editors (and long-term editors at that) have, unfortunately, used trivial tit-bits and tried to present Katherine as being notable. She has not won any high-level awards in her field, there are no independent extensive bios by reliable sources out there, need I go on?

I would also recommend deletion without redirect due to her non-notability. MedalSmeddle (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Understandably no one will want to touch this with a ten-foot pole, but to clarify here, I think what you were going for was WP:TOOSOON? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , nope not at all. Being ED of the WMF, in itself, doesn't even make one notable. And let's not forget she's only an interim ED. It's more WP:CRYSTAL that people are assuming she will become notable in due course. MedalSmeddle (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Move to Draft space/redirect to WMF - Seems WP:Too Soon. Keep - arguments below are persuasive.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Probably too soon. Quis separabit?  03:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete back when Sue Gardner was made ED, I created her article which was also prodded; the difference, Sue had a notable career before joining WMF, Maher does not..'too soon' indeed..-- Stemoc 04:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Too Soon. For the moment, Interim head of WMF --Nouill (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This article has not been in existence for two days, & is still in development. Give it a month, & if it hasn't been sufficiently improved by that time, then delete. -- llywrch (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then move to draft space until mainspace-ready. (t) Josve05a  (c) 23:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because people will look for an article on her & can't find it in draft space. I was looking for information about her, & discovered the article by following a link from the Signpost article. (Off topic: I wonder just how many views this article has racked up so far...) - llywrch (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, move to draft space then. This is not an argument for keeping, She is either notable or not. I would say give it a month, then see how notable she is. But as of now she has not even taken over the job yet, this is way too soon.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an argument for keeping if you keep in mind that what's there is more of a stub/start class-article written in haste than a seasoned, complete profile. Better sources & a better examination of her previous activities are likely to provide more proof her notability. (As points out below.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: ED of WP inherently notable, coverage will come.  This is a clear case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Article on Tretikov was created May 1, 2014, within moments of appointment, it seems; her prior background would most likely not have met GNG at the time, either.  Give this a week or two to develop, people.    Montanabw (talk)  19:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Follow up: The most cursory of Google searches reveals her being quoted in her role as CCO in the New  York Times, Washington Post, etc.  Yes, it was her job, but clearly meets extensive third-party coverage.  Plenty of bio info here that can be used for additional searches: https://www.linkedin.com/in/krmaher.  Afd this now and we will just need to recreate it in a week or two, so why waste the bandwidth with an AfD that is a total waste of time?   Montanabw (talk)  19:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Coverage will come in time" is the very definition of WP:CRYSTAL, if you want to argue that, move it to the draft space instead.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: She now heads a top ten Internet site. It is difficult to see how she cannot be notable. The article is verifiable and informative. And nothing is too soon. &mdash; fnielsen (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then what is even the reason for WP:TOOSOON, if nothing is too soon? (t) Josve05a  (c) 23:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I interpret the WP:TOOSOON specifically to apply when there's no media coverage yet of the person being considered, but you're pretty sure it's coming. There's some minor coverage now, including of her role before this, so that seems to be enough to keep the article.Timtempleton (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep From the current sourcing it is WP:TOOSOON / WP:BLP1E (hired) / WP:10YT / WP:NOTNEWS but willing to keep as a current event for now with no prejudice for relisting WP:DONOTDEMOLISH (the argument could be made that the position alone - interim or not - is enough per Sue Gardner "70th most powerful woman"). Widefox ; talk 23:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to note, WP:DONOTDEMOLISH is not a guideline. "Keep for now' is a common argument that holds little water where notability is concerned. If it is WP:TOOSOON to tell whether it is notable, then it is not notable. Note that she hasn't even taken over the job yet, and won't till the end of the month (seriously thats how premature and WP:CRYSTAL this is).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. My understanding is she's in the position from tomorrow. It's already tomorrow here. (and yes I'm aware what's a guideline, e.g. TOOSOON is an essay for instance so logically you may want to shore-up your own !vote). The notability is clearly from WP, but if viewed similarly to Sue, she may be arguably considered the 70th most powerful woman, which in my (crystal) book is notable. We can try to correct our naval-gazing, but let's not hypercorrect by ignoring the importance here. Widefox ; talk 00:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed my vote to Move to Draft space, as i think you might be right, but there is also the possibility that someone else will be chosen in a couple months to replace her (as she is only interim).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but we cannot WP:CRYSTAL ball the future. This seems WP:RECENTISM vs WP:RECENTISM, and I'd lean towards the former, which drafting wouldn't have any immediate benefit for readers wondering who's running the WP org today! If notable, then her tenure length doesn't seem relevant to me per WP:NOTTEMP. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a powerful argument, but by (rough) analogy we have Nine-Day Queen. If we want to avoid recentism completely we could draft and just redirect to Wikimedia Foundation, but I'd personally let the BLP get built. Widefox ; talk 02:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ping editors User:Pigsonthewing, User:Ktr101, User:Acabashi User:Mike Peel User:Ymblanter User:Adamstraw99 User:Deansfa User:Josve05a. Widefox ; talk 02:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: One doesn't need the crystal ball to see that if we delete this article today, it will simply be recreated again a month from now.  Sue Gardiner a case in point (her article was originally Prod tagged?  Really?)  The ED of WP has an article.  Has there ever been one who has not?  Frankly, if she has the job for two months as interim but then someone else becomes permanent, then there might be a case.  But there's not a case now.   Montanabw (talk)  02:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I am with User:Montanabw on this one. Give it a couple of weeks. Lila was the 99th most powerful woman per Forbes after 4 weeks of working at the WMF. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 07:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 07:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 07:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Montanabw and Doc James. – SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a case of automatic notability. Not in the wikipedia sense (i.e. playing for a x-level-league team in a pro match for two minutes at some obscure sport), but real-life notability (i.e. the world is taking note now). Agathoclea (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to draft space. If she becomes the 99th most powerful woman per Forbes, we can move it back to main space. Until then, we're navel gazing into our crystal ball. (Yup. I wrote that. Couldn't resist.) --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like an arbitrary high bar, and specific source requirement for a BLP, which if consistently applied would result in a limit of 100 BLPs of women. Widefox ; talk 21:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm responding to Doc James specifically, who wrote that. And I'm not unique in that, for example, the below responder is also responding to Doc James. Obviously that's not the only requirement; but there does need to be some sign of Notability, which has not yet been met. --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per DocJames, as I do not think that the case for saying that she is not notable is extremely weak. I also find it suspicious that the editor created an account, nominated the article for deletion, and has never been seen again (which makes me think that this is someone who might be blocked or banned). Either way, demolishing the house before it is built is really not how we should be building articles on the site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Or the nominator is one of those folks known for living under bridges. (Couldn't resist.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The ED (even interim) of a major charity / large organisation would seem to be intrinsically notable to me (i.e., I agree with ) - I'd actually go a bit further than that and say that the C-level staff should also be sufficiently notable in a lot of cases. The article is still in fledgling state, and I'm sure it will develop over time. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Too soon. --Benoît Prieur (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The interim appointment in itself confers notability. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: This discussion is now a Signpost article (or at least a draft): Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-16/Discussion report &mdash; fnielsen (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. probably notable before becoming WMF's acting ED, certainly so afterwards. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep ED of Wikipedia is inherently notable, as others have noted. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: I think notability was overlooked and the article was created simply because of the euphoria and excitement everyone feels about the recent victory the community had of the caving in from the pressure and subsequent leaving of "that person" who filled the ED position before Katherine took as interim. Bobby shabangu  talk  17:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Speculating on motives of creation (or deletion) isn't a powerful argument for the merits of the topic . Separately, crystal interim temporariness is discounted in WP:ATA "Delete This celeb is just a flash in the pan, and nobody will remember her in a week/month/year". Widefox ; talk 23:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really, as I created it because she had notability due to her position, not because of any euphoria or anything. It really wasn't that important for me to create, but I did it since I was amazed no one else had before. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2016 (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.