Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xochi Birch


 * 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 rationale for deleting is that she is not independently notable; that rationale has been well refuted by those opposing deletion by pointing out that she is equally notable with her husband. If people want to pursue a combined article, that's fine, but that should be done through a WP:Merge discussion Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Xochi Birch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Individual is only notable via her husband Michael Birch (businessman), and this article was nearly identical to that one. As Xori has no notability independent from Michael, this page should redirect there. I was accused of being "sexist" for suggesting this, but I would counter to say that the same argument would apply were someone to try to create an article for Marissa Mayer's husband. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge: as per OhNo's reasoning, not only is the person not notable, but the content here can be merged with her husbands article. Prabash.  Akmeemana   20:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Review of literature suggests that this individual does not meet WP:GNG. All I find are citations that mention that she and her husband started up Bebo, but nothing about her specifically.  Bebo is notable, but she does not inherit notablilty from it.  See WP:NOTINHERITED.  KDS 4444   Talk  20:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect (changing to Keep, see below) I don't agree that she is "only notable via her husband"; it would be more accurate to say that the two are notable for the same things, namely, the work they have done and companies they have started in partnership. All the coverage suggests that they are equally responsible for their creations, and they are usually mentioned and interviewed together. However, there is no need for two articles, since the information and the sources are virtually identical for the two. He is somewhat more notable in terms of the coverage they have received, so the article should be under his name. Ideally the article should be titled Michael and Xochi Birch but we'll let a redirect suffice. She is already prominently mentioned at his article so no further merging is necessary. (Actually, yeah, Jamie, it is kind of sexist for you to talk as if she is a nonentity married to a notable man, when the evidence all suggests they are a notable team.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Where in the Marissa Mayer article does it say that her husband is also her partner in her high-powered executive positions? It doesn't, because he isn't. He is merely a man married to a highly successful woman. In contrast, Xochi Birch is NOT a woman who happens to be married to a successful man; she is one-half of a successful team. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. ...and you might at least bother to get her name right. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no object to redirecting both articles to Michael and Xoki Birch. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but again - it's Xochi. Tough one, I know. 0;-D If the combined title gains consensus, I will undertake to write the resulting article, based on one or the other of the existing articles. I note that the two of them are back in the news this very week, for buying Bebo back from AOL. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I just saw Michael and Xorquis name in the news today as well. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, now you're doing it on purpose!--MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge There are a few independent reliable sources that cover Xochi Birch. There's a piece at BBC News titled "Valley Girls: Xochi Birch" which profiles Xochi, her role at Bebo, and her role at a number of other companies that she co-founded with her husband, Michael Birch. How We Met: Xochi Birch & Penny Rudge in The Independent also exists. If there aren't enough sources to justify both Michael and Xochi having their own articles, they should have a merged article (per MelanieN) rather than having an article for Michael and no article for Xochi given that there are plenty of sources that discuss them together. We are talking equal partners here in business here, not a businessman and spouse. The WP:NOTINHERITED arguments either apply to both (in which case, merge and redirect) or to neither (in which case, keep). —Tom Morris (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I should explain something: Xochi originally had her own page with completely unique content, but it was completely deleted (and its history lost) by someone claiming she was “not notable” when all evidence at the time already made abundantly clear that Xochi and Michael are equal co-founders, equal partners of a team that is known for both of them. This original deletion was an example of a systemic and historically prevalent problem (not just on WikiPedia, but everywhere), which is that women’s contributions to society are often ignored, diminished or undervalued. So, to combat this societal issue in a small degree, I set out to recreate Xochi’s profile because they were in the news with The Battery in SF. I wound up using her husband’s page for reference as her original page’s unique and different content was lost, with the hope of diversifying it more significantly over time with the additional Xochi-specific news items that were emerging. But when I came back later to do just that, I found it had been deleted/made to redirect to her husband’s page, causing the exact problem I had set out to address to rear its ugly face once more. And as per usual, the argument provided was the same ol’ fallacy, that Xochi was “not notable” — despite the fact that her notable accomplishments are the exact same as her husband’s. So if she’s not notable, then he’s not notable, and by all accounts we could just as easily delete Michael’s profile in favor of Xochi (yet for some strange reason *ahem* we don’t see this happen anywhere nearly as often as the other way around). Anyway, since both Xochi and Michael are slowly getting notable for their achievements in separate ways (independent public speaking, profiling in the media, etc.) in addition to their team-based notable achievements, it only seems right to me to keep both pages and let them grow more diverse from one another over time. Merging them now seems backwards, as we are just hitting the point in time where their achievements are diverging in more separate, independent ways. — Faruk Ateş (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You've convinced me. Changing my !vote to Keep, and I have added biographical information to the page. --MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced that the two need separate pages, though I retract my orginal argument (a redirect to Michael) in favor of a single Michael and Xochi Birch page. That they've appeared in public speaking venues separately doesn't make them separately notable, especially given that the speaking topics are related to their joint pursuits. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am willing to agree that a combined Michael and Quooky page might be an acceptable alternative here. As a standalone page, maybe not, but as a combined page, and as a nod to both Michael and Xoxxkchi's contributions to their collective work, maybe this is the best and most gender-equitable option that acknowledges Xoeki's work on the project.   KDS 4444   Talk  12:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Could I request that we stop making fun of Xochi's name? I realize you are doing it in fun, but it casts doubt on your ability to judge her article respectfully and impartially. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment At the risk of going off on too much of a tangent...my first misspelling was an honest typo. My subsequent misspellings were not intended to make fun of her name, but just to light-heartedly rattle your cage since you took umbrage with my original typo. It's quite possible that KDS's intention was the same.  I don't think anyone intends disrespect to Xochi here. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And I accepted your cage-rattling with an LOL, but I think KDS has taken it beyond that realm and into a realm approaching ridicule of her (or of her unusual/ethnic name; maybe people are unaware that she is of Mexican extraction and that Xochi is a fairly common first name for girls in Mexico?). I'm just saying "no more, please", because I don't want her name to become a standing joke here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2013 (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.