Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie Lu


 * 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 19:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Susie Lu

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Got some minor coverage regarding her receipt design, but that would come under WP:BIO1E, and not enough to pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Article has been expanded and references have tripled, should be given another look.
 * Delete it's a stretch to call her an artist, as I see no shows, reviews or collections. In terms of accomplishments, there is the receipt design and there is the creation of a tool for choosing colour combinations (there are a lot of these around). All the coverage on the receipt project is derived from one article on Fast Company. For Viz Palette, the colour picker, I see another Fast Company article, some items on Medium and multiple unreliable blogs. It is a bit above run of the mill, but not enough for GNG.--- Possibly (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe this meets notability. I just edited the article to add additional sources supporting the receipt design project (now at least 5 outside sources), as well as another project of hers on annotations for d3.js (3 sources). There are also 3 sources for the color palette project. There are clearly multiple, reliable, independent sources about this subject. AmeliaMN (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's not just the number of sources, but how in-depth they are about Lu, not her project.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just added a reference to the interview and feature of her work in Scott Murray (author)'s book (preview available on Amazon if you want to see the feature). Does that help?
 * Delete The coverage is mostly based on fastcompany, and then recycled by boingboing, clark.com, ubergizmo, tincture and globalnerdy. Elijah Meeks (her colleague) using her illustrations does not do much for notability. What her alma mater has to say about her also doesn't. It is unclear to me if she's known for her work at Netflix, but it seems that both she works on internal visualization products. There seem to be three things she might be known for, the receipt redesign, the D3.js annotation library and the VizPalette.If we want to write about an innovation like the redesign of a receipt, it's designer might be notable if it is widely adopted. Something like the QR code for example. But we don't even have an article on Masahiro Hara. If the VizPalette and the d3-annotation had been widely adopted or somehow influential, I have yet to see any evidence of that. Vexations (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would definitely support an article about Masahio Hara! I'm not sure that the absence of an article is good evidence about a notability bar, particularly as I can't see any past discussion about removing an article about him. I think that Wu has had an influence on the data visualization community, which seems like enough to me. Does everyone on Wikipedia have to have had a global influence like the QR code? I think the feature of Wu in Scott Murray's book (Interactive Data Visualization for the Web: An Introduction to Designing with D3) helps make the case about her being influential. You can search on Google Books and see previews of the pages she is mentioned on, or Amazon has a fuller preview in the Search Inside. AmeliaMN (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see that her colleague, Elijah Meeks has included a chapter, Susie Lu Senior Data Visualization Engineer that is not about her, but about a d3 library; d3-svg-legend. Murray, in Interactive Data Visualization for the Web, 2nd Edition interviews her about a "personal project" and mentions her d3-annotation: "A module for painlessly implementing visual annotations in D3 by Susie Lu" ( I have full access BTW, no need for snippet previews). For a biography, there's not much material that we can use to say something meaningful about her. Even if I feel that we can leave out some personal details, we don't have any basic biographical information, like date/place of birth, early life and most of education,. Her professional work is not public and it is not clear to me that she has made influential contributions to her field. I'll note that our notability guideline is just that, a guideline, not policy and the notion of what a "notable" person is highly problematic and often skewed against women. But even the idea that Murray interviewing her is worth mentioning is flawed: If a source discusses a subject, the encyclopedic thing to do is paraphrase what that source says, not say: "Subject was featured by so-and-so". That's expected, it's not in itself notable that a source discusses a subject. But even when taking that into account, and leaving aside the lack of biographical data, we ought to consider what the impact is of Lu's contributions and what can we say about that. Going by what I've found so far, I don't think there's much we can say. [[User:Vexations|Vexations (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. As Explicit (dare I say it) explicitly notes, references have tripled since the AFD nomination was filed. It would be foolish and unwise to delete this article, as recent updates have proven the subject's notability. Sean Stephens (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * AmeliaMN has significantly improved the article, so well done to her for such great work. Sean Stephens (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium  17:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm being bold and relisting this one more time. What do folks think of the article expansion per User:AmeliaMN?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - while the effort is appreciated, the same underlying issues apply.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom, Possibly and Vexations, and per WP:BASIC, including footnote 5, which discusses 'intellectual independence' - the six sources repeating information reported by Fast Company might contribute to notability if they were 'partial derivatives,' but only if they are reliable sources, which as non-academic, non-news-outlet blogs, they are not. And Fast Company reports, "she doesn’t have plans to take the project any further." There are also two interviews published by her alma mater, links to her own website, a brief mention of the Viz Palette tool in an academic journal (PLOS, 2020), a review of the tool by Fast Company, a brief mention of a 2017 tool from the Scientific American blog, an interview with Data Viz Today, a brief mention in a reproduced blog post by an author claiming no expertise, a brief mention of her cartoons, two Medium posts, a blog briefly mentioning a chart she made and her cartoons, and an e-book written by a college instructor that I cannot access. From my view, WP:BASIC requires more than this, even though it allows the combination of multiple independent and reliable sources "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial"; most sources do not appear to be independent and/or reliable, and most of the independent and reliable sources I have reviewed do not offer much more than trivial mentions. Beccaynr (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Beccaynr.4meter4 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 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.