Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Watson


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Rebecca Watson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article relies almost entirely on primary sources, falling back on other blogs, podcasts and youtube videos to fill in the gaps. WP:BLP article which has not attracted any significant coverage from reliable third parties (emphasis on the "reliable" part). coccyx bloccyx (toccyx)  19:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

NOTE This discussion is attracting votes from the site skepchick.org, where skepchickers are calling wikipedians (specially yours truly) "dicks", "idiot" and "fucktard" and other nasty adjectives. --Damiens .rf 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that the thread mentioned above isn't attracting votes from non-wikipedians. It's specifically stated in that thread that people who wouldn't otherwise get involved shouldn't do so. And "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments", no matter who makes them. Ole Eivind (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

note After three revisions to this state this editor ( Damiens.rf ) has violated the 3RR --Brendan White (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. User above is blocked. D ARTH P ANDA duel 12:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note Nothing in this note section is relevant in any way shape of form to the notability of the article it should be moved--Brendan White (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD has previously been reported at the administrative noticeboards. Moving AfD comments is tricky. I suggest, from now on, you leave the moving of comments in this AfD to the admins. In my opinion the above comments are germane, per WP:CANVASS. The AfD closer is allowed take them into account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For canvasing reasons I totally accept that it should be noted and is relevant, thats the purpose of the not a ballot tag to my knowledge, what is irrelevant is the name calling. Wikipedia does not have any rules regarding the civility of discussions that take place offwiki and that portion of his comment, the portion not covered, is why it should be moved to the discussion section, along with this discussion. A note expounding on the tag would also be acceptable, not a discussion of how he has earned himself a great deal of dislike --Brendan White (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Collapse Ed --Brendan White (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Talk:Rebecca Watson/Archive 1 offers some reliable third party sources to establish notability. At least one of them is properly cited in the main article itself. But yes, the cites in the article need cleanup.--Boffob (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete article is an effort by her friends to promote her. Not notable outside her small clique. --Damiens .rf 19:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. If she was notable only in her clique she wouldn't be asked to be a speaker at the same conference as Michael A. Stackpole. Also, she's bloody got an article in The Boston Globe. The references definitely need cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A winner of an NPR contest, an invited speaker to a major conference, subject of several major newspaper articles, founder of a notable group, written for a commercial magazine. Clearly notable within the skepticism movement. Mindme (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This here says it all: Talk:Rebecca_Watson. There are major third-party reliable sources about Rebecca Watson. Articles in The Boston Globe and Skeptical Inquirer, among several other papers/magazines, demonstrate notability beyond doubt. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several dead-tree media sources listed on the talk page (The Boston Globe should be pretty reliable). Watson is easily one of the most well known women within the skeptical movement (which isn't just her small clique). Founder of a notable organization. Co-host of the SGU, a notable podcast which is one of the most popular science podcasts on iTunes. Winner of the PRTQ. Spoken at The New Humanism conferece and the notable The Amaz!ng Meeting. Guest on other notable podcasts. She even has an astroid named after her! References should be cleaned up, but primary sources are here used to show history within a project, other dead-tree sources can show that these projects exist and are notable. Ole Eivind (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed some of the first-party sources with reliable third-party sources now. More can be done, but there can be no doubt Rebecca Watson is notable. Ole Eivind (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep notability well established via third party sources. If they name a celestial body after you, you're likely to be notable - Jeez. Wily D  21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that most of the resources are from blogs and youtube has no bearing on the fact that some of the resources are notable dead tree media and she does have a large following of tens of thousands, not a small clique by any means.--129.19.136.103 (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see the Boston Globe as one of the sources, and there are a couple other non-trivial sources cited. That's enough. (As usual if there is anything really dangerous under BLP, then remove it). This could almost be seen as a test case for demonstrating how outdated Wikipedia's notability standards are with regards to blogs, YouTube, etc. News flash: pretty soon there are likely to be more so-called "trivial" sources than "traditional" sources as more people decide to bypass traditional print in favor of blogs they can do themselves. 23skidoo (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And that wont's undermine the value of peer reviewed publications. Don't hold your breath to see FDA accept spammail advertisements as valid sources of drugs information. And until there, we will vehemently deny self-published blogs/youtubos/podcasts as reliable sources. --Damiens .rf 04:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man. Nobody was talking about peer reviewed journals and scientific papers. Only that if you're going to write about a podcast or blog, the podcast/blog itself will obviously be a very important source. We're not even saying it should be the only source (we have several newspaper articles), and we're not using other blogs as sources for what skepchick has done. But, for example, a good source for claiming that skepchick have sold skepdude calendars since 2007 is to link to the actual pages where they sold them. It's kinda obvious. A good source for what a blog post said is to show the actual blog post. We've clearly shown Watson is notable, and first-hand sources are only used to demonstrate the history of her projects, the projects themselves are written about in newspaper articles. Ole Eivind (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that what he is trying to say is that things like peer reviewed journals aren't going to switch to blogs and so wikipedia shouldn't either; it's a Slippery slope argument rather than a straw man, its still a fallacy he just didn't word his comment carefully enough to point to what he was really talking about. --Brendan White (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep From that AN/I thread I expected actually to need to look up some sources myself, but the Watson article pretty self-evidently passes WP:CREATIVE. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural note. Opcn was removing others' relevant comments from the AfD, which violates WP:TALK. I have restored the comments. Opcn has been blocked 24 hours for edit warring per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It shows a very fair system when I get chastised for moving someone else's comments but they do not fer restoring them and removing mine the double standard that punishes a new editor and lets a known troll off scot free really shows a great deal of fair and even handedness --Brendan White (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject obviously meets basic criteria of WP:BIO. The use of unreliable sources can be addressed separately in the editing of the article and does not take away from the presence of reliable sources that establish notability. Jeremiah (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep She has been the subject of multiple published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fredb (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does every random podcast "star" get heir own advertising page on Wikipedia? Isn't this the very definition of a "vanity page?" 4 November 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornswalled (talk • contribs) 22:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As a point of order, none of the people participating in this edit are "friends" of the person in question. Many are fans of her podcast, but last I checked, it was not against wiki policy to edit pages about subjects that interest you. None of the editors are acting under coercion from Miss Watson, so I can hardly see calling it a "vanity page." As a side note, Damiens .rf has made a point of being contentious in this article and several related articles, instigating edit wars in all of them, and has gone as far as to stalk the forums of an non-wiki site to reveal the side conversations of users who were simply trying to improve wikipedia articles on members of the podcast they listened to. Isn't this the very definition of Harassment as defined by wikipedia's own guidelines?MArcane (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment MArcane is right, none of the editors personally know Rebecca Watson. They follow her podcast, and some read her blog. As for your question, Cornswalled, the answer is 'no'. Not every podcast star gets a Wikipedia page. The reason that Rebecca Watson does, is that she has been covered on numerous occasions by several reliable third-party sources. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cornswalled, if you have evidence or logic this is a vanity page (for example, none of the notability links in the article or discussion match wiki's criteria) then you should table it. As far as I can see, you're just repeating the question before us. Mindme (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree, once you filter out the personal feelings that podcasts are not notable all that is left is Begging the question. --Brendan White (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would point out that the SGU podcast isn't one person and therefore makes her standing irrelevant (could this not just be on the SGU page?); the competition that makes up the majority of links denotes her as clinching a finalist position by her own online fanbase driving the votes for the competition - and did not eventually get a radio show and thus challenges the 'notable' element. The rest are mostly links to non-mainstream media, a few panel appearances or amateur group presentations (none of them show she has relevant qualifications like Stackpole, Shermer or Randi, being a copywriter and a former retail seller at a magic store - any evidence of her magician standing?) - I'm finding it odd to argue that that it isn't a vanity page considering the drive of the forum linked to is hosted by her at skepchick.org. Canning1980 (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understand it voting was only part of the process, there was also judging, like by judges --Brendan White (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2008 (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.