Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashida Richardson


 * 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. Result was overall keep though a couple of delete votes and a weak delete along with comments indicate article and sourcing can still be improved. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Rashida Richardson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

no evidence of notability: the works listed are not books, they are a magazine article, a newspaper article, a web page, and a technical report. The references are bioblurbs, presumably written by the individual or their press agent. Google Scholar does show citations to some of the publications, notably the report., but not enough to indicate notability. The only other references I was able to find are social media sites, bioblurbs in connection with lectures or minor appointments, and some of the articles she reported on CBS.

I am truly distressed to see that this article was the product of an excellent and responsible project that has produced much better content than this about more clearly notable women. The point of such projects is not just to add articles, but to add articles with good references about important subjects--we rely on the projects not just to get articles written, but to help the encyclopedia maintain quality.

It has proven very difficult to write a article showing the notability of a reporter, unless they have won a major award or published notable books. They're not usually a good choice for editing projects, where it's better to choose people whose notability is easier to demonstrate.  DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

*Delete I thought this one was borderline and I’ve wondered several times whether to nominate it myself. I think this nomination sums up very well why the subject pretty certainly doesn’t reach the threshold. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC) striking my !vote in the light of new sources added Mccapra (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I agree that this is borderline, although I think she's doing important work. What pushes me from weak keep to weak delete is that her only publication with triple-digit citations on Google Scholar has 12 authors (and she's in the middle of a non-alphabetical list), so we can hardly credit Richardson with most of its success. Beyond the wrong-side-of-borderline case for WP:PROF, I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added sources from NBC News, CBS News, and Reuters that quote Richardson as an expert, and added a recent co-authored opinion article by Richardson in The Hill. While the article still needs work, I have tried to update it to make the basis of her notability more clear, and I think the coverage she has recieved at minimum appears to meet WP:BASIC, i.e. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I also moved the MIT Technology Review reference from the lead and added information from it related to Richardson's input as an expert, added a New York Times article that quotes Richardson as an expert, and added information about the recent documentary "The Social Dilemma" that interviews Richardson. Beccaynr (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * None of these sources appears to cover Richardson in any depth — sources 6-11 only mention her briefly as the source for a quote, and source 12 is an interview, usually not counted towards notability. Can you supply any evidence of the in-depth coverage in independent reliable published sources required by WP:GNG? Because to me the news stuff you added (long breathless overdetailed paragraphs of "she was quoted in such-and-such a source", and then "she was quoted again in such-and-such a source) look like WP:WIKIPUFFERY (specifically, "detailed listings of minor biographical details") not notability. They are acting to make me think she is less notable, if that's the most that can be said about her, rather than more notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with the reasoning in the essay WP:INTERVIEW about how "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability," and specifically, "The material provided by the interviewee may be [...] secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported," because the recognition of Richardson's expertise is a form of commentary from an independent and reliable source. In this article, I think what I have added builds encyclopedic content about Richardson related to her recognition over time with regard to a variety of subjects, including facial recognition technology (NBC News, 2018, CBS News, 2020), her scholarly work about 'smart policing' (CBS News, 2020), predictive policing (MIT Technology Review, 2021, New York Times, 2020), and 'Big Tech' (Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.) (Reuters, 2019, "The Social Dilemma", 2020), because she is engaging in science communication related to her expert opinion about challenges with the techology, and in several instances, advocacy about how to address the challenges. These do not appear to be 'minor biographical details,' although the sources help verify aspects of her career, including as a lawyer, researcher, and scholar, which also do not seem to be WP:PUFFERY. I previously removed two citations that only referred to repetitive 'bioblurbs,' and focused on adding sources that would add depth to the article. I noted WP:BASIC above to address concerns about in-depth coverage, and I think it applies here due to the multiple independent and reliable sources taking note of Richardson as an expert. Beccaynr (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Beccaynr. WestCD (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Beccaynr has established the subject's notability with multiple independent sources. rspεεr (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Beyond being multiple and independent, notability requires that the sources provide depth of coverage of the subject. Which ones do you think actually do that (and are multiple and independent)? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we reading the same WP:GNG? The reporting on Richardson's work is not "trivial mentions". We're not talking about a high-school jazz band here; her work and the reporting on it influences AI policy. When it comes to the WP:BASIC criterion of independent sources, just as one starting example, Technology Review and NBC are of course independent of each other and of Richardson. I see no reason to continue to pursue deletion of this well-written, reliably-sourced article. rspεεr (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The mentions in these articles are primarily one- or two-sentence quotes from her, as a representative of a project, of the policy position of the project. In what sense is that in-depth reporting on original contributions to this area by Richardson? It seems more that she is merely a spokesperson. If a newspaper article reports a quote from the president's press secretary, that doesn't make it in-depth coverage of the work of a press secretary. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps it can be made more clear in how each source is introduced, but in all of the news sources, she appears to be cited as the person doing the work, not as a spokesperson (e.g. NBC News, 2017: Legislative Counsel, New York Civil Liberties Union, NBC News, 2018: director of policy research for the AI Now Institute, CBS News 2020: director of policy research for the AI Now Institute, New York Times 2020: a visiting scholar at Rutgers Law School and senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund), for her expert opinion on the subject being reported. Beccaynr (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's look in more detail at the first source you suggest, NBC News. The entire content pertaining to Richardson of that article (which contains much else not pertaining to her) is the quote "The first concern is that it gives officers full discretion to decide who to use the Textalyzer against," said Rashida Richardson, legislative council for the New York Civil Liberties Union. "That allows for a lot of bias.", and a similar quote later on citing some other organization's guidelines. It gives her job title as being a spokesperson for the NYCLU and gives her statement of the opinion of the NYCLU on the Textalyzer. When you say "the person doing the work", what work do you imagine she is doing, that is being reported on in-depth in this quote?? I might expect someone named as "legislative council" for a lobbying organization to actually do some work drafting legislation and persuading legislators to vote for it — I would consider those to be significant activities that could be (but seldom are) reported on in depth by publications. But just spouting an opinion in a newspaper story is not work and there is nothing in-depth about Richardson or her contributions to this issue given here beyond her mere job title. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a link in the article to the NYCLU that clarifies "legislative council" is a typo, and Richardson was Legislative Counsel, and therefore was doing the work and had expertise in the subject matter. I don't see anything in the article that suggests she is introduced as a spokesperson. This is also one source that can be read in the context of other coverage across her career in several professional roles, where the common theme is independent and reliable sources seeking her out for her expert opinion, based on her professional work, which is why WP:BASIC notability appears to exist. Beccaynr (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Re "therefore was doing the work": Again, WHAT WORK? Please give me some detail about the work she did as a legislative council. What things happened under her guidance? What written products did she produce as council? What legislation passed because she pushed it to pass? What events happened because she organized them? Anything like that? The only things in that source are an opinion and a job title. That's not in-depth coverage of her work. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If you scroll down the page on the NYCLU link above, there is a link to an article written by Richardson about New York City Council legislation, which also discusses past testimony by the NYCLU and further monitoring the NYCLU planned to do. In the "Our Work" tab on the NYCLU website, there is a dropdown list with "In the Legislature," which includes a description of the NYCLU's legislative advocacy work. But I am also not trying to suggest that the 2017 NBC News article is in-depth coverage, and instead that it is seeking her opinion as an expert based on her professional work as an attorney for the ACLU of New York, and when combined with other coverage, helps support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG Article supported with reliable and independent sources provide coverage of the subject. --Kemalcan (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, per the discussion above. I am not seeing any examples of specific and detailed coverage of the subject by independent WP:RS, as required by WP:GNG. GNG requires that a source address the subject "directly and in detail." One-two sentences per source don't count, even of there are 50 sources of this type. Nsk92 (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a subscription-blocked 2020 Sunday Times article with Richardson's image at the top that may offer more significant coverage; the bylined reporter also produced a 36-minute podcast titled "AI Now's Rashida Richardson: "Free-range facial recognition‪"‬." There is also a 2020 ABC News article quoting her as an expert that further supports WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't see what's in the Sunday Times article, so perhaps somebody who has the subscription can comment on that. The podcast is an interview and we generally regard interviews similarly to items written by the the subjects themselves. The ABC News article contains a single-sentence mention of Richardson. Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Per the discussion of the WP:PROF guideline below and the WP:INTERVIEW essay above, there appears to be an exception for interviews when an independent and reliable source interviews someone as an expert, because this is secondary source commentary about expertise that supports the notability of the interview subject. Beccaynr (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, per WP:IAR. The notability is borderline, but I find it sufficient for a neutrally worded article -- esp. the MIT Technology source. In any event, it's not a good look for Wikipedia to be deleting an article on a Black female scholar whose research focuses on the use of IA in policing of marginalised communities. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:Too soon. No pass of WP:Prof yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Comment Per the WP:PROF guideline, "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." The AI Now Institute is affiliated with NYU, and that helps clarify how there are more than a "small number" of quotations in non-local conventional media sources in this article and also linked in this discussion that quote Richardson as an academic expert in the particular area of algorithmic bias. Only one of the NBC News sources in the article quotes Richardson in her capacity as an NYCLU attorney, but all of the other sources found thus far (and the documentary) seek her expert academic opinion, while she was at the AI Now Institute or Rutgers. Beccaynr (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As an update, I found and added a CS Monitor source with more extensive quotes from Richardson, another MIT Technology Review source with a different author and a Detroit Free Press article that quote Richardson, and information about Richardson's testimony before a US Senate subcommittee in a hearing titled "Optimizing for Engagement: Understanding the Use of Persuasive Technology on Internet Platforms." Beccaynr (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (and a Canadian Press source quoting Richardson as an expert) Beccaynr (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (and TIME magazine noting her Senate testimony, and in-depth coverage of Richardson's work in another MIT Technology Review article) Beccaynr (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep; a great deal of sources are provided that establish notability as a subject-matter expert, which would also pass WP:PROF as above. Gnomingstuff (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2021 (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.