Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maia Weinstock

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. Rationales for deletion are that the subject does not meet notability guidelines and that the article qualifies for deletion as per WP:BLP1E. Rationales for retention include the notion that the subject meets WP:BASIC and that the person has received media coverage for two events, as opposed to one. Ultimately, no consensus has emerged in this discussion. North America1000 10:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maia Weinstock

edit
Maia Weinstock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trifling notability. Fails WP:BLP1E and therefore fails WP:GNG. PROD declined. Safiel (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zig, How does WP:CSD is met in this case? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a) this link: refers to a Wikipedia "Edit-a-Thon"
b) this link: HuffPo link referring to a "gender bias" on Wikipedia, statung "Editors Are Trying To Fix Wikipedia's Gender And Racial Bias Problem" -- is this article part of the solution to that problem?
c) this link: details Weinstock's penchant for creating Legopeople.
d) this link expounds upon Weinstock's "custom-designed" Lego "mini-figures" of female SCOTUS justices Quis separabit? 23:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pointing out that there are multiple references to her and her work in reliable news sources. This satisfies WP:BASIC in my opinion, and therefore the subject is notable and hence the article should not be deleted. The basic guidelines do not say that coverage has to be or cannot be for specific types of events (such as an edit-a-thin), just that such coverage has to exist. Hence, it isn't an argument to start discussing the content of the articles in reliable news sources, we just need to know that they exist. Note from WP:BASIC "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. ". Ross-c (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Has not received significant coverage outside of one event. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It cannot be excluded under WP:BLP1E for 2 reasons. The first is that WP:BLP1E reads requires that 3 conditions be met, and the second is: "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." I assert that this young science write is unlikely to remain "low profile". I assert this with great confidence because this 2015 Supreme-Court-Lego media spike is the second such even in her career. The first was a burst of publicity around getting women better represented on WP in 2013. Both topics sparked media coverage not just in the U.S., but in the Eastern and southern hemispheres. In major news sources easily found by typing her name into a google news search. [1]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertions regarding the future of this young writer may prove accurate but for now they are just that ... unfounded assertions, and a bit heavy on the OR. Quis separabit? 21:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I intended irony, and freely admit to using a crystal ball. Nevertheless, my point that this subject fails exclusion under WP:BLP1E stands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the example at Wikipedia:What is one event, BLP1E can still apply to a person who had been mentioned infrequently in the news prior to receiving coverage for a single event. Unless I am missing something, I don't see why BLP1E wouldn't apply here as well. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Hirolovesswords There have been 2 events in Weinstock's career that produced media spikes. #1, the 2013 edit-a-thons taht she helped lead to get more female scientists covered on WP; #2 the 2015 Supreme Court Legos. There has, however, been coverage of her activities between these events. She simply does not qualify as non-notable under the rationale provided by the Nom, who was mistaken.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irony: In 2014, Weinstock was cited by Judith Newman in an article in the New York Times on how AFDs are work as, "a Wikipedian who has been instrumental in raising awareness" [2] of the gender imbalance on Wikipedia. An article that immediately provoked yet other Wikipedia editors to create a page about Newman.[3]. Someone should immediately alert Judith Martin that we are discussing deleting Maia Weinstock.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to gender imbalance is not tokenism or lowering standards (we've already done that with current POTUS). And there are, to my knowledge, few (I can only think of one, off hand) serious Wikipedia editors (i.e. interested in anyting other than self-promo) who have their own articles on Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 22:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The WP metric for notability is coverage. Weinstock now has stuff like a lenghty Q&A in Newsweek [4], this write-up [5] on MSNBC, and Marie Claire gushing over her [6].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are more than enough sources here from two significant events, as E.M.Gregory wrote above. If I wrote it after she was covered in one major event, than the one event rule would apply. However, the Supreme Court thing generated significant coverage, and coupled with the gender gap coverage, it clearly shows two events being discussed here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Her journalism gets cited. For example, she is cited several times in a book I have not read, in Chapter 5 "Chicks with Bricks: Building Creativity Across Industrial Design Cultures and Gendered Construction Play," by Derek Johnson, in LEGO Studies: Examining the Building Blocks of a Transmedial Phenomenon (who knew LEGO Studies was an academic field?!), edited by Mark J.P. Wolf and published by Routledge, 2014.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG. Hashtag: navelgazing. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The major-media attention for her Lego judges would clearly and obviously be enough for WP:GNG, except only for the facts that it's recent and only a single event. But I think there's enough attention for her past works as well (examples: an edit-a-thon in Slate; an art exhibit that she curated in the Austin American-Statesman) to avoid those issues and keep the article. As for some of the earlier comments: it's very difficult to treat as unbiased the opinion of an editor who characterizes Obama's election as an instance of tokenism (there's a different -ism that I think clearly applies to that comment) and we have the usual "it's about an editor of Wikipedia so therefore it's automatically not notable" reactions that, while understandable as a mechanism for preventing us from focusing on our own navels, are not based in policy. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:- I have no idea of how WP:BLP1E applies. Two significant events are involved and not one. However, subject of the article clearly meet WP:BASIC. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maia_Weinstock&oldid=1051454202"