Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suw Charman-Anderson


 * 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. The Telegraph source clearly establishes notability.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Suw Charman-Anderson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete -- Vanity article, lack of sufficient notability Jwrandom (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- and please check out the many sources above that reference the subject by her maiden name Suw Charman, not by her fairly recent married name Suw Charman-Anderson. A few sample references supporting her notability -- biographical article 2006, Telegraph includes her (2009) as one of Britain's most influential voices in technology, BBC (2010) on success of her recent project "Ada Lovelace Day". betsythedevine (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * first link: this is a marketing website, not an appropriate source. second link: this is not a recognized honor entering the enduring historical record, nor does it have much validity as shown in the Talk page. further, if you look for the people ranked higher on wikipedia you will find that hardly anyone has an article. third link: this discusses the event, about which an article has already been created. cf. WP:BLP1E suggests merging this information into the event article would be appropriate. Similarly for ORG, of which the subject is no longer a director or staff member -- WP:NTEMP applies.
 * counter proof: low number of links to this article per http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search?p=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suw_Charman&fr=sfp&bwm=i and and http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search?p=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suw_Charman-Anderson&fr=sfp&bwm=i (mostly self-referential), so it won't be missed.
 * you hardly appear to be neutral in relation to the subject: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=betsy+devine+suw+charman i am certain most if not all content edits could be similarly traced to acquaintances. the obvious: suw is notable only within her circle of friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwrandom (talk • contribs)
 * do you read the things you cite? WP:BLP1E talks of a one-off event; ALD + ORG are two separate notable contributions; [WP:NTEMP]] says "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage". 157.22.22.57 (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Easily notable. Nominating user doesn't seem to be familiar with our notability guidelines. Jeni  ( talk ) 10:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary -- I have proposed the deletion only after careful study of the word and spirit of WP:BIO. This person has not received a "well-known and significant award or honor". The validity of a bottom end ranking in the above referenced Telegraph list has been thoroughly debunked in Talk:Suw_Charman-Anderson) and her contributions have yet to gain widely recognized recognition. Whether Ada Lovelace Day will become "part of the enduring historical record in [..] her specific field" is yet to be seen, it appears not to be the case now and neutral persons will not know or care that the subject of the article was involved in its genesis. I would like to specifically point to WP:NTEMP. As the edit history shows this article is largely the creation of personal friends of the subject, as further evidenced by the (new removed) inclusion of resume trivia that were unreferenced and unlikely to be known by an outsider. I welcome your comments on whether my interpretation of notability guidelines is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwrandom (talk • contribs)


 * Comment Information World Review, the source of the biography cited above, is a British trade journal, not a marketing website. Quoting from WP:BASIC, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." It has never been my contention the the Telegraph list of influential Britons is a major award. My judgment of Suw's notability may indeed be skewed by my many acquaintances in the blogging community where she is very respected and well-known, as well as by the fact that I attended several meetings of ORG led by Suw and enjoyed getting to spend time with her on several occasions. You can also see in my Contributions list that I have often defended BLP articles of people I do not know  (e.g. Jason Fortuny and Tucker Bounds) from anonymous attack. betsythedevine (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) "Presumed" implies this criterion is suggestive but not absolute, which is why I am challenging notability here. I suggest you read the footnotes accompanying your linked guideline. More importantly though, the specific rules in WP:CREATIVE trump the more general rule you mentioned. It appears that for creatives whose primary job it is to publish and get noted the bar set for notability is deliberately set higher than what you suggest per the general rule. (2) Secondly, what makes you characterize a typical RFD as an "attack"? I am sure Mrs Charman-Anderson is a fine person and I assure you that I have nothing against her -- she is simply not a notable person. I simply ask that you be intellectually honest about evaluating notability per community guidelines and reconsider your vote in this matter. User:Jwrandom  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.0.26 (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) Wikipedia policy is perfectly clear on the WP:BASIC criteria for notability; this subject meets those criteria. The additional criteria listed below are not a set of extra-high hurdles stacked on top of the basic guideline; they are alternate routes to notability for individuals whose specialties make it harder for them to meet the basic criteria.  "Failure to meet these /[additional/] criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Furthermore, among the criteria for Creative Professionals I believe that  Suw Charman most certainly meets the first, being "widely cited" by her peers and a frequently-invited speaker at conferences. (2) Please stick to the point here of discussing the notability of Suw Charman. It is appropriate to criticize edits made by other editors; it is a violation of WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL to attribute their edits to prejudice and intellectual dishonesty. Your arguments for your own point of view should stand on their own merits and be closely based on Wikipedia policies. betsythedevine (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Keep That anonymous users and obvious sockpuppets like User:Jwrandom can attempt to remove notable women from wikipedia is an abuse of process and clear misogyny. Can we summarily dismiss this and get back to writing enyclopedic articles please? Kevin Marks (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just another case of fabricated notability due to personal relation between subject and editor http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="kevin+marks"+"suw+charman" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.0.26 (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: notable for her founding role in the Open Rights Group, among other things. As discussed on the talk page, people who work in the media are often more notable, that's life. Using this as a reason to delete articles is a flawed argument.  J Rawle  (Talk) 23:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * agree about the latter, it is only presented as one argument among several, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.0.26 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Request to admin for "Speedy Keep" on this article and a block against its nominator. This article has been under attack since March by an anonymous IP and the single-purpose account he created in order to file an AfD against it. He has used Wikipedia process as an excuse for filling the talk page with repeated insulting claims about Suw Charman -- that the article is "vanity" and "self-promotion," that her profession is promoting herself, that her presence on a Telegraph list of Britain's most influential people in technology is suspect because the author of the piece may be her friend (while the anonymous sour-grapes sniping of commenters on the article is of course pure gospel truth), that the article exists only because of inappropriate actions by her friends and "victim defense reflexes from those with an agenda to further the careers of women in technology." I would further like to request that this WP:SPA and the IP address behind it be blocked from defacing Wikipedia in the future and that all their comments be removed from the article talk page.betsythedevine (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea, a clean slate will enable a proper RfD debate in the future without ad-hominem arguments levied against the proponent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.0.26 (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep on the grounds of meeting the basic criteria, but I think both sides here are perhaps a little too overinvolved in their comments.    DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nearly 700k hits. RussianReversal (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2010 (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.