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 speedy keep. Non-admin closure. • Anakin ^(talk) 05:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Gardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. While I am excited for Sue Gardner that she is the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, I am not seeing notability in terms of how Wikipedia defines it. The articles listed below, which do make mention of her by name, are primarily surrounding the issue of Jimmy Wales supposedly filing inappropriate expense reports, with only passing coverage on Gardner if any. JBsupreme (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep without respect to which organization it is, the ED of an organization with major internet impact is notable . DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - she was just nominated in the Huffington Post for Ultimate Media Game Changer. The ED of the Wikimedia foundation, that runs the 8th most visited website in the world, is clearly notable. Majorly talk 02:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Don't be ridiculous. Clearly meets the sourcing requirements of WP:BIO. Steven Walling 02:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. The article may have been well sourced before, but it was tiny and uninformative. JBsupreme is right, a number of the 'references' had almost no information about Gardner. I added a few paragraphs and better sources, but it still needs work. +sj+ 08:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The current references aren't great - we have her own LinkedIn profile and agency profile, two WMF press releases and a blog, none of which really count towards notability. The two remaining references are something, but not much. I can believe that the sources are out there, but we don't have them yet. --Tango (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep. In charge of the organization that runs the sixth most visited site on the internet. If this were any other organization as significant as Wikipedia it would be absolutely ludicrous to propose deleting its top executive. Common sense is allowed. --JayHenry (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I may not have edited in a very long time, while I disagree with some of her decisions, and while I often support a stricter approach to what is defined as encyclopedic, this is ridiculous. Would anyone even consider deleting Eric Schmidt or Carol Bartz? Danny (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Her nomination by the Huffington Post "as one of ten 'media game changers of the year' for the impact on new media of her work for Wikimedia" would, alone, satisfy any notability concerns. A search for "Sue Gardner" wikimedia raises 11,000 hits. Let's move on. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Get a life keep. Lampman (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep clearly.--Milowent (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2009 (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.