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. Disclaimer: I learned of the existence of Adrianne Wadewitz from the post on wikimedia-l, and I believe we never crossed on Wikipedia, so that I consider myself completely uninvolved. If I count votes, it is 21 deletes against 68 keeps, with some abstaining and arguing both ways. As it is customary in such discussions, some voters do not bother to present any policy-based arguments, and after reading the discussion, I was about to close it as no consensus, despite a clear numerical consensus for keep. I think it is established that she fails WP:ACADEMIC. The discussion is whether she passes WP:GNG, and the main argument is that she got two obituaries in the high-profile newspapers, NYT and LAT, and she was mentioned in a number of publications, mostly about women's participation in Wikipedia (BBC, USA Today and others). Again, these publications without the obituaries are probably insufficient for WP:GNG, and the question, which is debated in detail below, is whether a NYT obituary is sufficient to confirm notability. From what I see, there is no consensus on this issue, and this is why a no consensus closure would be appropriate. However, given a clear numerical proportion for votes, I close the nomination as keep. If consensus has been estalished at some point that a NYT (or any other major national newspaper as LAT) obituary is by itself insufficient to confirm notability, the article can be renominated for deletion, despite my keep closure.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne Wadewitz[edit]

Adrianne Wadewitz (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)

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Beerest 2 Talk page 02:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unremarkable academic career; being a Wikipedia editor, however prolific, is not notable. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. WWGB (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & WWGB - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per below - I wasn't aware she was included in the NYT which is notable enough. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NYT obit is certainly interesting in its origins. It was penned by a NYT scribe who's written often about Wikipedia in the past, and virtually the entire obit is about her Wikipedia editing activities -- activities that I would not ordinarily expect to see chronicled in a big city paper. Townlake (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per reasons given above. Dman41689 (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Her notability certainly isn't relegated to that one event. She's been featured in articles from BBC News and USA Today about the lack of a feminine viewpoint on Wikipedia. That, along with the unprecedented attention paid to her death in the media, makes her notable as a female scholar and activist. Given enough time, I should be able to find enough sources to expand on both roles. ~jcm
  • Comment. It remains to be seen whether a couple of quotes in larger articles constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Also, what is "unprecedented" about the coverage of her death? WWGB (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per reasons given above.68.109.175.166 (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sadly to pass GNG you must have significant coverage and she does not. It is always a sad day when we lose good contributors though. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WWGB. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Don't we usually take an obit in a prominent journal like the NYT as prime evidence for notability? --Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can help add to notability, but I don't think that a NYT obit is an instant article-needing card. WP:ONEEVENT still applies. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been practice to treat NYT obituaries as per se evidence of notability. --Lquilter (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep -- obituaries in multiple reliable sources, including the NYT, convey notability by themselves, and she's been featured in other articles published by reliable sources during her life. The content of the obits are largely about her achievements on Wikipedia, which clearly the NYT and other WP:RS cited consider significant, even if the commenters above do not. Fortunately, we are able to defer to WP:RS on this. -- The Anome (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have seen bios with less sourcing kept at AfD. This is not meant as an "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" argument: I get the feeling that people are being overly critical here because this concerns a Wikipedian. Obviously, Wikipedians don't have (and shouldn't have) a free ride to notability, but I don't see any reason to apply more stringent criteria either. Multiple obits in prestigious newspapers, several other RS (and I'd be surprised if there isn't more to be found). --Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:AGF, I hope like you that people are overcritical because she was a Wikipedian, and not because of her focus on women's issues. It does seem a bit ironic that we have a source above (the BBC one) describing how Wikipedia is overly quick to call for deletions of articles on women, and yet here we are. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hear hear! It can be unbelievable and heartbreaking how much higher the bar on AfD is raised for women working on issues of gender is than for men working on computer science and other traditionally masculine issues. There is so much more in the obits than about the circumstances of her death that it seems hard to read them as saying these media outlets have covered a rock climbing accident without suspecting other motives even with Good Faith applied. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • In an odd way I think it is actually a tribute to her or any wikipedian to carefully make sure that they are deserving of an article. It helps respect their work to build this fine fountain of knowledge and keep it going! It's a sad irony that she fought for womens rights and lack of representation here on the pedia but I hope that most here don't operate on that level. If the subject is notable it should be here! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, that it is a tribute to her as a wikipedian than we carefully scrutinize articles on Wikipedians to make sure they pass the notability bar; Hell is right on that. But after a NYTimes obit and other clear evidence for passing, I think it's acceptable to raise the suspicion that bias may be part of a reason some are downplaying her notability. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subjects of NYT obituaries are notable, full stop. And there are enough other sources (e.g. the ones given by jcm above) to satisfy the letter of the WP:GNG "multiple sources" requirement. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above, disregard our own COI as Wikipedia editors. Philip Cross (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject is notable wikipedia editor who received her own article in the New York Times, as well as coverage by the BBC and USA Today. People will come here to search for an article on her, and it would be tragic if their search resulted in nothing. QbR54190dfcv (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC) — QbR54190dfcv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Despite the use of obituaries as references, her notability is not based on her death -- it's based on her her work as an educator, activist, and editor. As noted above, there are other references that can (and should) be added, but the NYT obit in and of itself demonstrates notability. JSFarman (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She did lots of activism and is notable.--Taranet (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Who says that being a prolific Wikipedia editor of high quality articles and an activist on gender issues in the Wikimedia movement is not notable? The evidence is the media coverage she got during her life and after her death. Like other people who write for other publications and stand out her work should be recognized. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment As someone who reads and writes articles about women who are activists and trailblazers (see my user page for the lists), I recognize Adrianne Wadewitz as being such a person. It is very remarkable that she participated in the Wikimedia movement the way that she did and that is the reason that she received media coverage both before and after her death. So the article on her explains the gap she filled in the movement, and that is why she is noteworthy. It is not about honoring her with an article. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - NYT obituary is per se evidence of notability by long practice. We don't determine notability or non-notability; third-party sources do. And third-party sources have deemed that a young academic who was a prolific contributor to Wikipedia is notable. Evidenced by multiple reliable source mainstream journalism, including the NYT obituary. --Lquilter (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an obit in a national newspaper is usually considered sufficient. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they aren't. Secret ^account 01:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when? An obituary in the NYT has always, in my 8 years of experience, sufficed in discussions. --Lquilter (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am surprised at the level of coverage this is getting to the point it meets WP:GNG. Secret ^account 01:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I realize recency may cloud our judgement, but if Wadewitz's accomplishments are as notable or more so than anyone in Category:Wikipedia people, the article should be kept.  VC  02:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talkcontribs)

If there's one place that "Other stuff" should apply, it's Category:Wikipedia_people. Looking through just the male entries I notice Ting Chen, Martin Haase, Samuel Jacob Klein, Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) all have less notability per references than Wadewitz. So why are we even having this conversation?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- A NYTimes Obituary definitely clears the WP:N bar -- a rock-climbing death, however tragic, does not convey notability to us or to the NYTimes. They wrote about her because there's more there; as should we. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was afraid someone would create an article and it would be nominated for deletion. I even put it on my watchlist a couple of days ago. For Wikipedia/Wikimedia related people we should extra careful because we're biased. I know I am. I met Adrianne several times in person so I'm not going to !vote on this. Some observations. I agree with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL links. If the article would contain more information and references from before she died I think these points are addressed. I am a bit reluctant to consider the NYT article as a strong source because Noam has been actively reporting the Wikimedia movement for quite some time. I met him in person and I'm pretty sure he and Adrianne met too. Multichill (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would hope that a professional journalist has met, or at the least spoken to, the person they write a news story cum obituary about. That in itself creates no COI. Do we apply that standard to journalists writing about, say, politicians? Of course not. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I had never heard of Adrianne Wadewitz before reading her obit in today's NYTimes. As a fellow academic (not in the lettered social sciences as she was, but in psychological science), I was moved by the details about her scholarship, her brief but promising academic career, and her untimely death. It is all too common for women's voices to be devalued, even in in academia, and especially when they speak of women's history. It appears that Dr. Wadewitz's contributions were to make sure that the women whose stories she told or helped edit did not have their contributions buried. I feel inspired to help ensure that her contributions are not buried either. Please do not delete her biographical entry. Today I will make a contribution to the Wikipedia Foundation in her memory. - Susan E. Brennan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanelisebrennan (talk • contribs) 14:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Besides all the good reasons above, this clearly meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - per FloNight. This nomination is factually incorrect (by asserting WP:ONEEVENT)!—John Cline (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Of course, for reasons stated above re: notability. How fitting that this discussion would occur after the creation of this article, but that's all I'll say about that! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I saw the NYT obituary floating by on twitter and at that time thought she does need an article. Obviously someone else thought the same. Obviously she is notable. At this point I want to repeat one important point: Just because a person is connected to wikipedia does not automatically make them un-notable. Same rules apply. It was her standing in the accademic community (i.e. lifetime achivement) that made her notable in the eyes of the NYT not the manner/timing/circumstances of her death, which would have invoked ONEEVENT. Agathoclea (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes GNG -- NY Times obit, coverage elsewhere, etc. This would be clear even if we didn't know her. Antandrus (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, regretfully. Per WP:ACADEMIC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT piece was in the Media section, and clearly treated her as notable as a Wikipedian (and "activist" if we must) rather than an academic. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. jbmurray, who !voted delete above, has been repeatedly removing the BBC secondary source from the article in favor of a primary source. It is difficult to see this as an act of good faith. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's a ridiculous and disrespectful slur, which demeans the otherwise civil discussion that has been taking place on this page. I suggest you delete your comment and take your disagreements to the appropriate place. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Switch to Keep, now that there are two obituaries: NYT and LA Times. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:GNG met. Once again, we have the sexism that is endemic to wikipedia, she's female, so the notability threshold is five times that of a man. Sheesh, the usual systemic bias. Delete Lawnchair Larry, why don't we? Then revisit this one. Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteThis is a difficult time to have this AfD, and a hard position to take. My reasoning for voting delete is based on the context and encyclopedic value of her biography - years from now. Those who cite NYT piece as the sole test for notability should consider that she was described and considered notable as a wikipedian - which leads back to Wikipedia being the original source for notability. I know this vote is soon after her passing, probably not a good time to go through this - even if it is kept now, it's likely it would be voted against in an year, or two or five. It's sad but the encyclopedic value of her article is not going to change. This has nothing to do with sexism, her activism, opinions or her prolific output - purely about notability. General activism and prolific output have little to no correlation with notability. Besides that, it's sad to lose one of our own, and she seemed like a great contributor. Theo10011 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. JSFarman hits the nail on the head: "her notability is not based on her death -- it's based on her her work as an educator, activist, and editor." It's difficult to be utterly objective, but we must be careful not to overcompensate by raising the bar higher for notable subjects who are Wikipedians. --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Like user Multichill, I will abstain from voting since I personally knew her, but I'd like to provide additional reference material, that's not currently being used in the Wikipedia Biography Article of Adrianne Wadewitz, to assist other Wikipedians with this decision;

BBC News Magazine: How can Wikipedia woo women editors?

USA Today: Universities 're-write' Wikipedia to fill holes, include women

Charlotte Sun Times: Remembering Adrianne Wadewitz, Beloved Wikipedia Wiz

Huffington Post: Women Relax, Men Mountaineer: What Backpacks Reveal About Gendered Marketing

Academia.edu: Adrianne Wadewitz

Famous People Obituaries: Adrianne Wadewitz, 37, Wikipedia Editor, Dies After Rock Climbing Fall

ProQuest Citation/Abstract: 'Spare the sympathy, spoil the child:' Sensibility, selfhood, and the maturing reader, 1775--1815

Google Scholar: Adrianne Wadewitz

Wikinews: Wikimedian activist Adrianne Wadewitz dies

Wikipedia Essay: Wiki-hacking: Opening up the academy with Wikipedia

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkermen (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment The above sources only further demonstrate that she and her work have received very significant coverage in mainstream media reliable sources. I was not at all familiar with her work prior to today, but this seems to be a very clear keep, based on the WP policies cited by many others in these comments. To be frank, I don't think there is even much ambiguity. There are guidelines for notability, and she satisfies them many times over. Our personal opinions about how she satisfies them are irrelevant in the face of such overwhelming evidence.

I agree, though, that the entry needs to be cleaned up a bit. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: (edit conflict) Yes, Wikipedia is not a memorial and her biggest achievement was Wikipedia-related. However, her death was covered in multiple reliable sources and Editing Wikipedia is notable in its own right. The article itself could use a bit of cleanup (i.e. "...and a rare figure in the Wikipedia community." What exactly does that mean?), but that's got nothing to do with whether or not this could be considered "keepable" or not. As mentioned above, WP:COI is irrelevant when there's enough reliable sources. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 20:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I also am not going to vote here as I met her at a meetup that we both attended in 2012, but I am unconvinced that she warrants an article. I am one of the more inclusionist Wikipedians that I know, but I have mixed feelings about whether she is worthy of an article. Obviously this is not one of the better times to be arguing this, but I just don't see inherent notability here, even though I can see where the keep arguments are coming from. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JSFarman, additionally on the coverage mentioned above that is not yet used for the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I knew Adrianne and worked with her a little; I don't think that means my comments should be discounted, but I'm disclosing it in case the closing admin thinks so. She doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC, but I think the NYT obit makes the difference -- if the NYT decides that the combination of her academic work and work on Wikipedia makes her notable, then we should accept that. I think many of the other sources cited are not evidence that she is notable, however; being quoted or interviewed doesn't make you notable. Notability is derived from articles about the person, not articles in which the person is quoted. In this case I think the obit is enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I believe that awadewit was an incredibly valuable Wikipedia editor, and I cried buckets when I learned of her death. However, her academic career was in its youth and was not that remarkable. Her primary claim to notability is as a Wikipedia editor and activist, and I believe it is an inherent COI for Wikipedia to put up articles recognizing its prolific contributors. The sources may quote her, but they are not really about her. The exception is the obituaries, which were driven from Wikimedia sources. Even if we consider Wikimedia a reliable source, this is incredibly circular - Wikimedia talks lots about a topic, a third-party source picks it up, and now it is all of a sudden notable? I don't agree. I do not agree that Wikipedia editing is grounds for conferring notability, whether multiple sources confirm that one was an editor or not. I do not agree that Wikimedia activism is grounds for notability, whether multiple sources confirm that fact that one was an activist or not. With all due respect to awadewit's memory, I do not believe she was notable....and I don't think she would have considered her life to be worthy of an article here either. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikimedia talks lots about a topic, a third-party source picks it up, and now it is all of a sudden notable? I don't agree." Yup—that's how it works. Whether you agree or not is moot—the third-party sources are all that matters. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability met.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment I won't vote because Adrianne Wadewitz has just about passed away and I think it is unfit to have a discussion like that at this time. So, could we please have this discussion at a later point of time? RIP.--Aschmidt (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good or bad, AfD's can't be put on pause, so it's now or never. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the fact that I cannot vote either under the idea of it's way too soon after death for the article to even exist. However, I also worked with Adrianne on several projects and cannot vote either because I would declare a COI on myself. I just feel like the article was created too soon.Mitch32^{(Any fool can make a rule, And any fool will mind it.)} 03:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Karanacs and per additional WP:IAR considerations. There is little specific and detailed coverage except for a fairly short NYT obit. Wikipedia has an inherent COI in creating articles about subjects whose main claim to notability is their Wikipedia contributions. I am not saying that such subjects can never be notable, but I think that the credibility of Wikipedia requires that we apply a significantly higher notability standard in such cases compared to ordinary biographical articles. In this specific case notability is fairly marginal according to our regular standards, which translates into a 'delete' in my opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This seems to be a controversial issue. We have a NYT obituary, but it is rather short, and Noam talks about Wikipedia all the time, so the significane factor here is low. I don't know Adrianne because I wasn't much active while she was, but I'm sure she did good work. Sadly, after I analyzed the guidelines, I find this article to fall under WP:BLP1E. Without a young death, there would be nothing. I think people here are taking Adrianne's Wikipedia work too seriously and letting it cloud there voting. wirenote (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that you're talking about the "Biographies of Living Persons" criteria, right? And the section about the presumption in favor of privacy? --Lquilter (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Earning an obit int he New York Times is (it seems to me) an obvious sign of notability. What we really need is a way to review this article in a year's time to see if we are just being emotional. On the face of it, anyone who gets a NYT obituary would seem to be noteable.Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All said and done, I see no notability. An obituary in the NYT does not give someone notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is very sad – not only the events, but also the fact that we have to have this discussion. But I don't agree that a NYT obituary automatically implies notability, and I am not seeing any claim to notability beyond Wikipedia/Wikimedia contributions. I didn't know the editor in question but I suspect that if it were not for her tragic death, there would be no article and no suggestion of there being one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The notability isn't so much the work on Wikipedia itself but the metadiscussion about Wikipedia and gender amongst other topics, discussion that has attracted attention and is part of popular culture and information culture. My view is that people use Wikipedia to provide context for topics and subjects in dicussion. News articles, and obits, as listed above, confer notabilityTullyis (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest keep possible. I like to think she'd be amused by this. Certainly she never strove for notability during her all-too-brief life. And I wouldn't have started an article, even after her death. But then The New York Times ran her obituary, which to me is a slam-dunk quickpass for notability. Just because someone doesn't strive for notability in their lives does not mean it can't be conferred posthumously, after all. Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I can add something here, WP:Notability is not temporary. Even if it was her death which was most notable, that still works here. Even if it's short, someone who doesn't live in New York getting an obituary in the New York Times is a sign of notability. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After, I read about this accent in various climbing forums and press releases, I turn to wikipedia to read more details. I assumed that there would be an article on the subject here and would have been disappointed otherwise. I was surprised that to find this discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That the obituary was written by Noam Cohen is irrelevant; it's standard practice to have a journalist write the obituary for a person related to the beat he or she covers, particularly when the obit doesn't run immediately following the subject's death. (This ran more than a week after Wadewitz died, and, significantly, it ran in the print version of the paper as well as online.)

Regarding the notability inherent in a New York Times obituary, I'm quoting Bill McDonald, the obituaries editor for the paper: "When we look to see whether someone had made a newsworthy impact in some way — who "made a wrinkle in the social fabric," as Margo puts it — we don't equate significance with fame. In point of fact, 9 out of 10 people we write about are indeed not household names (the 10th is — a movie star, a secretary of state). But that doesn't negate their importance. Most made their marks in quiet ways, out of the public limelight, but they still made a mark, possibly on your life and mine." (Talk to the Newsroom: Obituaries Editor Bill McDonald on Measuring a Subject’s Importance). JSFarman (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This seems cut and dry to me after reading the NYT Obit, then seeing three other examples of significant coverage in the mainstream media. WP has established criteria for notability, and she already more than satisfies those criteria (and then some). Individuals' personal opinions about her worth as a scholar, etc., are irrelevant since mainstream journalists/experts have already determined she is notable by dint of significantly covering her life and work. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep please keep this. I didn't know her i just read her obit in the new york times and looked her up on wikipedia. What an amazing person! She gave so much to wikipedia and to the world through her articles and research, you would be doing her a disservice to delete this page about her. I think contributing hundreds of articles on the achievements of women, and helping people all over the world to better understand the people who have helped shape it is totally a "notable achievement." wikipedia puts knowledge in the hands of the masses, it's like a modern version of the printing press, how is contributing to that not notable? like the other person who commented above, i was shocked when i looked her up to find that deleting the article about her was even in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaklandjen (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

You've just argued that the article should be a WP:MEMORIAL. I suspect this emotion subconsciously underlies many of the comments here. Agricola44 (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You may suspect that, and I may suspect other motivations -- but our speculations don't matter,* because ultimately we look at third party sources. I have really not seen anyone arguing successfully that someone who has a NYT obituary is not notable. * Actually, they do matter, because you are supposed to assume good faith. I for instance wouldn't argue for wikipedia articles for deceased editors, generally, but a Wikipedia article on a person who has been determined to be newsworthy by third-party sources is completely relevant. --Lquilter (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also add that the fact that someone comes to wikipedia, from a NYT obituary or other press ... exactly demonstrates why an encyclopedia article is appropriate. People who read third-party news sources or other resources may go to an encyclopedia for an overview and more information about the subject. That's why the encyclopedia exists -- to provide articles about notable topics. Which are defined by press/other third party coverage. --Lquilter (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Obituaries are not indicators of nobility, nor are very many...if any any all...of the keep votes above free of appeal to emotion arguments, and should be discarded as such. Death is a tragedy, but memorializing a Wikipedia editor for all-time with an article is highly improper and quite frankly an abuse of the project. I'm sorry, but if the sole claim to notability here is a death notice, then that is the worst possible basis for a article. Tarc (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I find this argument completely counter to Wikipedia policy. If someone has been *noted* by a major newspaper, then ipso facto they are *notable*. And it's a bit of a misrepresentation to call a full obituary written by the newspaper's journalists a "death notice", a phrase that more commonly refers to a very different category of item, an announcement paid for by the deceased's family. Do you have a basis for your assertion that it is so impossible to be notable for Wikipedia editing that even thinking of it is "an abuse of the project"? Because frankly that language, in contrast to most of the discussion here, is what comes off as an appeal to emotion to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted for dying is not notable. Tarc (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noted is notable. It doesn't matter for what. But in this case, the Wikipedia editing seems to be a larger part of why the NYT chose this particular dead person, among so many, to write an article about. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For what it's worth, Wadewitz is already memorialized at WP:RIP. Agricola44 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong Keep Dr. Wadewitz was a pioneer in the emerging academic area of Digital English. In a brutal and withering academic employment market in the Humanities, she managed to obtain support from the most prestigious sources. At Wikipedia, she participated in two long-running podcasts, leading one which focused on helping Wikipedians and scholars with research and writing. Her series of articles on Jane Austen logged more readers per month than the most famous "old media" publications on the same subject, which amazed her doctoral advisers. She also was involved in research on Wikipedia editorship, and wrote extensively on it. She packed a tremendous amount of scholarship and contributed substantially in a very short period. The New York Times article alone recognizes some of her achievements, but to be honest it barely scratches the surface of what she produced. I spoke with her for many hours on Skype and in person over a period of years, and believe me, this was a unique scholar.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This wall of gushing testimonial is precisely what I was referring to above. Because Wadewitz was "one of us", there is a very real and difficult burden of objectivity to maintain. The tragedy of her death, especially the circumstances and her young age add even more burden. To read the Filll's post gives one the false impression that Wadewitz was a leading academic, whereas in reality, she was junior faculty with a record roughly on par with her title. I join those above who have expressed concern w.r.t. the way this article is being assessed and hope the closing admin will go through !votes carefully. We should not make this into an inappropriate memorial. Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I have some knowledge of academia and research, well outside of this cloistered Wikipedia garden (being here anonymously, I will not fill this post with my credentials, but I have plenty of background that allows me to judge her contributions outside WP). There is little doubt in my mind that Dr. Wadewitz was already making substantial inroads in academic circles and was going to make far more. I do not "gush" over her just because I knew her or because she was a Wikipedian; in fact, I have almost completely stopped editing WP because I find the intellectual standards of most editors abysmal. Dr. Wadewitz was an exception to that observation. Not only did she have potential, but she was fulfilling that potential. Do we really need to interview those who awarded her her fellowships, and those who hired her? Having a WP article is not akin to winning the Nobel Prize for Literature, you know.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a more than a passing familiarity with academia. Accomplishments are an open record and you can readily check hers at WorldCat, WoS, etc. What you will find is very average for a junior academic. Mind you, I have not said Wadewitz is not notable. As David said above, and NYT obit is hefty. My concern is rather that many comments here are overtly biased based on the fact that she was "one of us". For example, you've now added WP:CRYSTAL ("Not only did she have potential") to your wall of testimony. This is the sort of thing that makes WP look provincial to the outside world. Agricola44 (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• KEEP. She's notable and deserves to be included. ----Sue Maberry (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As the book Fame At Last, a historical analysis of the NYT obituaries, reveals, the notability criteria for being included in the NYT Obit is exceedingly high ("Your chances of getting an obituary in the Times are fairly remote, about one in a thousand, or less" according to author John Ball). If she met the notability to be included in the NYT Obits, then she doubtlessly meets Wikipedia's substantially lower criteria. Thebrycepeake (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I worked with the subject of this article and I feel that she would want me to post as I saw fit. Leaving aside the obituary from The New York Times, the subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG and even with the NYT obituary the subject does not meet specialized criteria like WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. The major argument for notability for this person is an obituary from The New York Times, which many people here are interpreting as definitive proof of notability. I say delete because in past conversations I have had with Wikipedians it was thought that an obituary in this paper was not sufficient to prove notability.

In 2013 some researchers came to the Wikipedia community and proposed to develop automated tools to start articles about women based on obituaries from the The New York Times. Their intent in doing this was to counter gender bias in Wikipedia. They had a very clever demo live on their site at that time but which now seems removed or back in closed access. When I talked with people about judging notability by having an obituary in The New York Times, some people told me that a system like this would be problematic as neither NYT obituaries nor any other single publication grant notability, and even multiple obituaries may not meet inclusion criteria.

I support the creation of Wikipedia articles according to community thought and precedent and guidelines. Without the NYT obituary I feel that this article definitely does not meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria and think others would agree. With the NYT obituary I feel that some people are persuaded, but based on other conversations and thought that I have put into this I feel that the NYT article does constitute the coverage requirements to WP:GNG. I do not like the idea of clearly defining a line in which Wikipedia policy is changed to say that people with NYT obituaries are notable, because so far as I know, this argument has not been used in the past. I definitely do not want people in the future claiming notability for everyone in the NYT unless the Wikipedia community thoughtfully says this should be so. If this article is kept I wish that it could be done so based on precedent and not because of any new rules, and I do not feel the precedent has been met here at this time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Who are these "some people" who told you that NYT obituaries don't signify notability? I wish I'd known about this experiment, because I would have had a lot to say about it. (2) Just as a matter of being precise, I wouldn't say that NYT obituaries -- nor any other source -- "grant notability". Rather, they demonstrate notability, which is gained by the subject. (3) I'm sort of annoyed by all of this second-guessing of third party sources, which strikes me as WP:OR and subject to bias. How, exactly, are we supposed to determine notability, if not by using reliable source indicators, of which NYT obituaries have been a keystone? Are we now supposed to apply our own personal, subjective opinions? Isn't that the very definition of original research and non-neutral point of view? Seriously. If this person were a contributor to Encyclopedia Britannica or any other work of scholarship, and for whatever reason, had become a known commentator on some issue in that work of scholarship, then we wouldn't really have a question. Excluding the subject based on the reference being Wikipedia is also a type of bias. (4) Folks who don't personally think that Wadewitz' work was notable, you are heard and recognized. Please find some objective criteria by which to distinguish the "non-notable people who receive NYT obituaries" from all the rest of them, who have always had NYT obituaries as a recognition of their status. Otherwise I'm going to have to believe that it's an unfortunate example of gender bias because Wadewitz's contributions don't seem important to you. Those of us who do work in feminist scholarship are not perhaps as skeptical, and you may wish to reconsider your own sources of knowledge and opinions, since you are deeming the most mainstream of news sources as somehow not objective or reliable. In this one instance. So I'd really like to see the criteria by which that determination is being made. --Lquilter (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lquilter Thanks for your comments. You seem upset. Thank you for making space for me to speak. The project to promote NYT obituaries as a standard for establishing notability is still active. If you would like to join me in contacting the project coordinators and would help them apply for a grant at meta:Grants:IdeaLab, then I would support your efforts in doing so as they have wanted help in the past. Wikipedia is not a reasonable channel for expressing emotion so I cannot properly reply to anything else you have said, but if you would like to talk by video or phone then email me. If you would like to make a proposal at WP:GNG that a NYT obituary is objective criteria indicating notability then do so and I will write a favorable argument supporting your proposal. If NYT obituaries have historically been an indicator of meeting GNG or some other inclusion criteria then of course I would immediately support keeping this article and apologize for spreading misinformation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, Bluerasberry. I will follow up. As to the comments on my emotional state, I think they're not appropriate, but I'll state for the record that I'm often pretty annoyed at double standards and assertions made on *FD discussions that rely on subjective assessments of lack of notability. The only objective assessments we have are media coverage; we have media coverage. For those who argue we should abandon the objective standard of media coverage for subjective views of "notability", I'd really like to know what the new standard will be. For those who argue that NYT obituary is not per se notable, I'd like to see an instance of an AfD where that was held to be true. --Lquilter (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for commenting on your emotional state. I felt backed into a corner when you criticized me by saying that my actions were an "unfortunate example of gender bias because Wadewitz's contributions don't seem important to you." I felt hurt that my efforts to promote women's outreach on Wikipedia were dismissed, I felt as if I were being pushed away from commenting in women's space, I felt pressured that I was being restricted from expressing myself, and because I associate Adrianne's work with my friendship with her I felt bad when you said that my actions indicate that her work was not important to me. I should not have said you were upset. I was upset. I apologize for making a statement about you because it was wrong of me to do so.

I do not want to continue this conversation here because I am not enjoying it at all. Anyone who wants to talk to me can email me and talk by phone or video. I do not wish to find an instance of AfD in which someone had a NYT obituary and was deemed to be non-notable because I am less concerned with that happening in some odd case and more concerned that inclusion based on obituary for a Wikipedia public figure will set a precedent if one does not already exist. I posted a draft of this rule at WP:BIO because I wish to answer you and divest myself of further conversation in this space. I am not happy thinking about any of this anymore. Lquilter, as I have told you before, I like what you do and I am sincerely sorry that I am unable to act in a way that avoids harming people as I harmed you. I wish to be a better person. If I had to do this over again I would never want to have a conversation like this on Wikipedia and only do things like this in person, by video, or by phone. Feel free to call me anytime to collaborate on anything - we have a lot of common interests. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As someone who knew Adrianne, I feel rather uncomfortable participating in this discussion. A sticking point seems to be whether or not an NYT obituary indicates sufficient notability. I rather agree with User:Bluerasberry about this. If the precedent exists, then I'm happy to follow it. If it doesn't exist, I'm not happy setting it here and in this manner. This has nothing to do with my opinion of Adrianne or of the value of her work, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So borderline I cannot make up my mind. What do you think, User:DGG? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask if people will be likely to be interested in this article in ten years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep I read the NY Times article when it appeared on the yahoo.com homepage. That article plus the USA Today article (and others) are enough to meet GNG for me. She was already distinguished as an activist for feminism on Wikipedia before her death. Royalbroil 04:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Defective nomination in the first place: BLP-1E is for living people. Passes GNG through sources already showing in the piece. Carrite (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the nomination is mentioning WP:ONEEVENT. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 10:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is one AfD I never thought I'd see here. I consider there is firm precedent that anyone with a NYT editorial obituary is notable, at least for the period after 1900. I can not recall when any such article was ever deleted, and unless significant counter-examples can be shown, that determines the rule. We have even accepted it for society figures of no particular intrinsic importance except for being a member of "society", and that is the sort of non-accomplishment notability about which I would otherwise have the strongest doubts. For anyone with accomplishments of an academic or public or professional nature, they are a better judge than we are. I am not one of those who think the GNG the best criterion in all fields: but it is necessary as a backup, and this is an example. But for the general standard of what notability for people in the US means to the public, the NYT is the authority. That we should make the only rejection of it for one of our own , implies that regardless of what the NYT says, we ourselves knowing her better think her unimportant. Is that what people here intend? I rather doubt it, but I can understand the deletes in no other light, and they need to think it over again. But I would be prepared even without the NYT to make an argument for notability here, and not a particularly borderline one either.(I should mention that I've unfortunately cannot claim to have been a personal friend, much as I now regret it. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply, because she didn't become notable simply by dying. Powers ^T 13:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep notable, and interesting; perhaps wikipedia should be deleted too?...Modernist (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE For the following reasons (Caveat: I knew Awadewit very well):

• The factual propulsion behind all these news sources is rooted in grief. Wikipedia holds some baffling influence to get a single editor into the New York Times, which is absolutely stunning and I am willing to entertain the idea that Featured Article writing is such a novelty, is so new to society and technology that news agencies would want to cover some aspect of it, but creating an article about Awadewit to do that misrepresents HER efforts and the FA writing and reviewing process. In this case, I have to cite WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, not because someone is taking facts out of context from the New York Times source, but from my entire experience in FAs. Because it is impossible in this instance, no matter how close we profess to stay to Wikipedia's ideals, to divorce the source material from our own experiences.

• An obituary in the New York Times, and it being regurgitated by clickbait sites, does not make someone notable. Take, for instance, Bob Green, Anita Bryant's first husband. He got an obituary in the Washington Post, as many people do when they die. Notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Well, I suppose so for the first editor to create his article just to prove a point here. But not really. Watching this take place is harrowing and fascinating. People grieve openly on the Internet, and a writer at the New York Times takes that as synonymous to legitimacy and strength of presence. I added the longest comment to date on Awadewit's page after learning of her death, which I am beginning to regret profoundly, because it is being used to bolster something I do not agree with. I would have written a similarly passionate and grief-filled exclamation upon hearing about the deaths of a dozen other editors I worked closely with.

• What was included in the New York Times obituary, aside from a few specific facts, could easily be said about dozens of editors active in Featured Articles. Awadewit would have been the first to point this out. To highlight one editor who worked on feminist issues ignores the other editors, regardless of what they worked on, but is a specific slight particularly to female ones, who also worked on feminist topics or those relevant to women. Myself included. Where previously I considered the dialogue about female editors to be puzzling because FAs generally had any number of active and strong-willed women at work at any given time, now this is just doing a whitewash by repeating the same crap that women aren't a part of the process on Wikipedia. STOP THAT. It is not true. I am a woman with 20 Featured Articles and I am saying this. (Because I am alive, does it make my experience and perspective less valid than Awadewit's or Noam Cohen's obit? Somehow, I fear that is the case.) Awadewit and I are not a unique pair of pioneers. Awadewit was not the first and not the most active, and calling her prolific... using ANY of these superlatives is again doing a whitewash of the truth and don't get all WP:TRUTH and WP:V on me. This article is about a Wikipedia editor, being argued about on Wikipedia. Those only partly apply and Wikipedia seems like a monster that is eating itself by having this discussion.

• This article is slacktivism, or an expression of desire for action only as long as little effort is put into the product as possible, which I find profoundly disturbing. By following Wikiepdia's guidelines, the article would have to summarize the best source(s), which is itself a summary of Awadewit's life. Her life is essentially simplified into concepts and ideals, based on cultural standards here at Wikipedia, across the Internet, and in academia, and it minimizes her presence, not acknowledging the fully dimensional person she was. She is, in essence, being remembered by being horrifyingly simplified so editors here can feel better about themselves, can find meaning in memorials, feel like they accomplished something without doing anything. This tendency for Wikipedians to see slacktivism as worthwhile is deeply ingrained in this system. It's very depressing. This article will remain a shitty stub until many, many other sources concentrate on Awadewit's very short career, if ever. It is possible it will remain a shitty stub for years. What an honor for Awadewit...

• Instead: start an effort to get an onsite historian to keep records and tell the story of how Wikipedia has developed. Start now. The Featured Article writing process is in reality, quite extraordinary, because it is done collectively, not by a single person. Awadewit was a part of the entire fabric of Wikipedia and she helped raise standards across the project. She is not unique, however. Unfortunately, she is dead now, so we/you get to determine her place in the grand scheme of reality. Just don't misrepresent the rest of Wikipedia in your rush to do it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) That GNG slights many who work on underrepresented issues is undeniable. However, that's a problem with GNG. GNG specifies mainstream sources. Which we have here. (2) Your sense that many of us are motivated by grief is apparently the sense of quite a few editors. It's not relevant and, in fact, not necessarily accurate. Citing to policy, practice, and precedent are relevant. Your proposal to memorialize Adrianne Wadewitz through other measures are great; but they shouldn't affect this discussion -- on whether or not AW passes GNG. (3) You are correctly noting that Wikipedia mainspace articles are not the place for memorials. Nor are they a place to delete articles on notable subjects -- as defined by GNG -- because of the feelings of editors who think the subjects wouldn't be well-represented. It's our job as editors to create and maintain well-crafted articles on notable subjects. Notability is defined by mainstream media, not us. --Lquilter (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will never cease to amaze and depress me how I can make more sense than anyone else in a discussion, to have someone I never met (to my knowledge) come behind and inform me which of my points are valid and which aren't. As if the people reading are too stupid or ADD to tell the difference. Maybe they are, which is why I no longer participate. Who's next? I know you guys can be persistent and condescending, if not completely accurate or intelligent. Or you can just let my lengthy points stand without response. If you dare. I don't think you do. --Moni3 (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say that we disagree, and we can leave it at that. --Lquilter (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A wise response. I suppose Wikipedia may still have a few surprises in store. --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, WWGB, and Moni3. Creation of an article at this point is misguided, at best. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was shocked and saddened by her death, and yes, I'd like for her various and valuable contributions to be recognized and memorialized. That said, the best way that we as a community ought to do this is to uphold the sort of work that she did, which includes maintaining high standards for our content. Those high standards exclude the article about her as a person, but they're a good memorial of her as a Wikipedian. ((Nihiltres|talk|edits)) 17:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you please address the substance of the dispute, which is whether a NYT obituary, and additional media coverage, meet WP:GNG. There is no serious disagreement about whether memorials are appropriate reasons for wikipedia articles (they're not). There is, however, apparent disagreement about what constitutes sufficient media coverage to demonstrate notability. --Lquilter (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I'll get technical. There are two potential sources of notability I see: Wadewitz's life (as an academic and prominent Wikipedian), and her untimely death. The former doesn't support a notability argument particularly well: almost all of the coverage focuses on the latter. The fact of Wadewitz's untimely death is a single event, and so its coverage should be discounted significantly when considering notability. Thus, there is little support for an argument that Adrianne Wadewitz is notable. This argument has been expressed elsewhere in this discussion, so I decided it was unnecessary to repeat it it in my initial comment. The message in my comment is about emotions: I suggest memorializing Adrianne Wadewitz with actions rather than words. ((Nihiltres|talk|edits)) 21:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep she is internationally famous (as validated by the editors of BBC, NY Times, USA Today ) for her feminism. The fact that 90% of Wiki editors are male was a great challenge to her and she worked on it. Not surprisingly, some of those 90% are unhappy with her as we can see on this very page. Rjensen (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - normally I would not agree based on just being a notable Wikipedian. However, that notability reached a level which got international mainstream media attention - as well as her work around other issues. For that reason and others outlined above beyond just her Wikipedia work, I support keeping the article. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 18:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After I said we had never deleted an article on a person with a NYT obit, I was answered that we might delete someone whose principal source was a Washington Post obit. I don't disagree with that. The only other paper we've accepted this way has been the London Times. There are probably others in various places in various time periods, but they've never been extensively discussed. And the content of the obit is not relevant, just the editorial decision to include it. I would hold to this principle even for someone who I though personally insignificant, on the basis that the NYT is more reliable than I am, or even than we collectively are. Some of us seem to have a strong negative coi, such that anyone involved in this project is unlikely to be notable , regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. This has been shown at AfDs for other WP figures, but never before for someone with such sound sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
• Delete This strikes me as the type of self-referential article we want to avoid. I also see no reason to slavishly follow the decisions of the NYT. The NYT does not create notability. Multiple, indepth, independent sources is the gold standard, an obituary in one newspaper, even f reapeated ad infinitum, is not the way to pass the GNG. I also find it very disturbing the assumptions of bad faith by some editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the NYT does not create notability ; it recognizes it. That's the whole point of the GNG. I have never liked our practice of using the GNG in all cases, but it is a useful backup, helpful in resolving disputes like the present one. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes there's the NYT article, but there's lots of other articles about her in other media. Thanks to the creator and the contributors. Deansfa (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I first considered !voting keep, as there appears to be significant coverage. But the coverage of her death is huge, but in the end, this is a WP:ONEEVENT as there is almost no other information available. The older media has just a passing mention. I've looked at Tinkermen's proposed sources, but I'm still not in favor of keeping. I believe the minimum h-index value required for notability is 15 (correct me if I'm wrong) (see here). The paper being listed in ProQuest doesn't meaning anything, because it's not a selective database (there are millions of papers listed there). So, I'm not seeing notability, although it is a close call. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 22:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've misunderstood WP:ONEEVENT. I agree that there is significant coverage. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 13:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with those who hold that the mainstream secondary sources are quite good enough to pass GNG. She is clearly notable for what she accomplished and stood for, not how she died. I also think we are going to feel very foolish if we delete this entry too hastily, because the things that she is mainly notable for — public, feminist championship of Wikipedia as a shared worldwide resource, and modeling an emerging approach to public scholarship — are nontrivial. Overall, I find Lquilter's arguments the most cogent on this thread.Alafarge (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm with WWGB, Bretonbanquet, and Tarc on this. I don't see how contributing to Wikipedia makes anyone notable, and as an academic, she fails WP:SCHOLAR big time. There is absolutely nothing in the article or sources that make her out to be anything other than an average, unremarkable scholar whose hobby was editing Wikipedia. While her contributions to the project are appreciated, article space is no place for a eulogy. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Varnent - but also because asides from the NYT she really is mentioned in a lot of scholarly places, and has authored or collaborated with a number of important projects. With just a few days time I'm sure an impressive number of citations confirming notability would be found. -- kosboot (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"being a Wikipedia editor...is not notable"

"being a Wikipedia editor...is not notable" comes from the very first comment above, and I hear it echoed over and over in this discussion. I think this reflects a deep value among many Wikipedia editors, one that in 2012 I compared in a scholarly article to the analysis that historian Frederick Jackson Turner used to explain the hyper individualistic democratic psyche of the American frontiersmen in the 1800s: What they objected to was arbitrary obstacles, artificial limitations upon the freedom of each member of this frontier folk to work out his own career without fear or favor. What they instinctively opposed was the crystallization of differences, the monopolization of opportunity and the fixing of that monopoly by government or by social customs. The road must be open. The game must be played according to the rules. There must be no artificial stifling of equality of opportunity, no closed doors to the able, no stopping the free game before it was played to the end. More than that, there was an unformulated, perhaps, but very real feeling, that mere success in the game, by which the abler men were able to achieve preëminence gave to the successful ones no right to look down upon their neighbors, no vested title to assert superiority as a matter of pride and to the diminution of the equal right and dignity of the less successful. Rjensen (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that participating in a gameshow does not make people notable. But when applying WP:GNG they become "notable" in the wikisense. Equally we can't allow what we personally think makes someone important to overrule WP:GNG to establish notability. Agathoclea (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Editing WP does not count toward notability, nor does participating in some game show. But if reputable media note these activities, that is when somebody becomes noteable. BTW, I object to the use of the word "deserve" or "merit" that many people above use. A bio on WP has nothing to do with deserving or meriting, but only with notability (for better or for worse). --Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG: [1];[2]; [3];[4]; multiple sources (eg, BBC, USA Today) during her life. Why these independent sources found her entire life notable is rather beside the point of a deletion discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Adding Los Angeles Times in furtherance of GNG. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is no one bothered by the fact that the longest section in the article (Digital humanities) is sourced almost entirely by a self-published web page (See article talk page.) or that the longest paragraph in the section on her death is sourced to online message boards? The unbiased among you will rethink their support for the article, others will make excuses for the sources, some will try to find better ones. Probably most will dismiss this comment as the rantings of an IP and suspect sockpuppetry (nope). Oh how predictable you are, Wikipedia. 70.134.226.155 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are valid issues for CLEANUP, not DELETION. AFD is not for cleanup... --Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sorry, but WP:GNG is all about significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. If the assertions in the article aren't supported by reliable sources, then they can be removed. And if they're removed, is there enough remaining for notability? 70.134.226.155 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is independent of content. Content should reflect that notability, but poor writing cannot take away existing notability, especially if we know GNG complient sources exist. Agathoclea (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. While, WP:Notability is needed for an article to be kept, the content of the article may correctly use all kinds of sources not used for wp:notability (see eg. WP:SELFPUB). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG.Valli Nagy 19:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValliNagy (talk • contribs)
• I'd just like to point out this. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of !voting in a deletion discussion when the article's subject passed away, so I'm just going to leave this here as a note. There does appear to have been considerable previous coverage in press sources before the present. Cloudchased (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I respectfully disagree. Those Google links, while numerous, don't amount to "considerable previous coverage" of the subject herself. Townlake (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is both sad and inappropriate that we should be having this discussion just a few days after her death, all the more as she clearly meets GNG. And, because the significant coverage she has received relates to the entirety of her activity as a Wikipedian, not just to her death, it does not fall under WP:BLP1E/WP:ONEEVENT. --Azurfrog (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Metioned in BBC, USA Today for work done on Wikipedia and obit and life report in NYT...notability established. Adrianne passed away a week after her fall in Joshua Tree National Park, I assume the one reported in their press release on April 1, for the March 29th injury, though no name is mentioned.--MONGO 00:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- to people who are arguing for delete because of WP:ONEEVENT, what's the One Event that this article is supposed to be folded into? March 29, 2014 Joshua Tree Rock Climbing Accidents? A career's worth of work is not One Event under any reasonable reading of the term. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It may be redundant now, but I support several earlier arguments that the article should not require additional proof to meet notability guidelines simply because its subject's notability is related to her scholarship and activity on Wikipedia. Does it really make sense to cite Wikipedia policies as evidence that Wikipedia activity is not worthy of being cited? Troctar (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've !voted "keep" above, so this is a comment, but she now has obits in two major newspapers-of-record, the New York Times and L.A. Times. Her obits are primarily about her life and works, including prominently her activities on Wikipedia, not the manner of her death, so WP:ONEEVENT does not apply. I think this is now conculsive proof of notability as per policy, and move for this AfD to be closed early. -- The Anome (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleting a Wikipedia article about a person in the popular media critiquing Wikipedia absolutely sends the wrong message about the openness of Wikipedia. The issue of issue of how content is placed and vetted in Wikipedia is an important one and based on obituaries in NY Times and elsewhere, Wadewitz was an important figure in this discussion. In terms of credentials in digital humanities, Wadewitz was the Mellon Digital Scholarship Postdoctoral Fellow in the Center for Digital Learning + Research at Occidental College and a blogger on the digital humanities portal HASTAC (http://www.hastac.org/blogs/cathy-davidson/2014/04/10/remembering-adrianne-wadewitz-scholar-communicator-teacher-leader). She is further an academic with a presence in the popular media (pre death) and I believe this alone makes her notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.8.31 (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. A variety of sources is already available, and I also found 2 published yesterday (23 Apr), which may or may not have already been mentioned.[5][6] While the subject may not have met WP:ACADEMIC, her academic achievements are noted as well as her activities as a Wikipedian. Hence WP:BIO1E does not apply. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Regardless of the outcome of these discussions, we need a biography about her in the GLAM and Outreach pages, given that she is on the cover of our brochure on how to edit, and has played such an important role in developing the encyclopedia. Are we really serious about promoting participation of women on this website? Djembayz (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but, yes, it's wrong to use her death as PR. That's why you want to delete. LonelyLaura (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you totally ignore her death, she is still a paradigm for working with WP. (I said keep above.) -- kosboot (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I came back just to voice my opinion. Yes, she is now most notable for her death in the light of all of the work she's done for wikipedia, but she was breaking ground before that. She should be recognized for her work. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 17:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She has enough notability because of the many articles on her, whether abour Wikipedia, Wikimedia or scholarly articles. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't know this lady but her notability is evident, see article L.A.Times 4/24/2014 "Scholar helped edit Wikipedia", admittedly I am not expert on WP guides but I have the authority of a daily user of WP for as many years as you reading this. Suggestion for understanding, look for examples in the sphere of rock musicians, some are notable if only as explanation or explanation informing the knowledge of the larger sphere, and look at others in their spheres. It seems this lady passes your test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangle001 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the subject seems to have been occasionally quoted by the media in Wikipedia-related matters, I have located zero coverage directly about the subject prior to her unfortunate passing. If someone can show me I'm wrong about this, I'll cheerfully delete my vote, but absent better sources this seems too much like Wikipedia reporting about itself. Townlake (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please point to where in WP:GNG or other appropriate notability guidelines there is anything saying that it's relevant whether the date of publication is before or after the date of death. And also, consider in your answer how this would affect our articles on historical figures such as Fibonacci: can we only use published-before-death sources for them? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your question about coverage of historical figures is a straw man. This is a contemporary subject. So we're left with assessing makes this subject notable, which seems to be that she was deeply involved in this project and then generated news coverage through an unfortunate accident -- which was the only event that generated independent coverage specifically of her. Again, unless I'm wrong? If I'm wrong, please show me. Townlake (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, first of all, there was coverage about her in BBC and USA Today prior to her depth, although arguably not in-depth enough about her specifically. And secondly, most newspaper obituaries, and these ones in particular, are not really about the event of the death, the way a news story about a murder might be. They mention the event, briefly, but most of the content of the obituaries concerns the subject's life and work, the same as a newspaper profile of a living person would do. Additionally, there is nothing in WP:GNG about "assessing what makes this subject notable" and/or judging whether the basis for notability is something we consider worthy. What we should be assessing is purely how significant the sources are and how much depth of coverage of the subject our sources give. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The BBC and USA Today articles at the top of this AFD page quote her, but they don't cover her in a non-trivial way. And I don't think the obituaries place her in the public sphere to the point where an encyclopedia article is appropriate. That's no disparagement of the subject or her accomplishments, it's just an acknowledgment of the lack of coverage her work has received. Maybe someday that state of affairs will change. Townlake (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Satisfies my reading of WP:N. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Stub. First, let me say that this article was created at perhaps the most inopportune time. I, like probably many of you, have the feeling that we're "scavengers fighting over the corpse" – distasteful in the extreme – but we're all here, so evidently fight we must. (Footnote: Perhaps a policy on a "waiting period" is needed, so articles can be considered with cooler heads...we're not a news source and it's clear that the WP:RECENTISM of this event is creating enormous problems.) The reasons for "keep" are obvious and unavoidable: that which has been noted is notable (here by NYT obit, among others). However, let me play devil's advocate. There's very little independent information in the NYT source (besides vital stats) on which to base an article. Most of it talks about her activities as a WP editor – information that necessarily comes from WP itself. In a very real sense, this is referentially circular. Quite a large fraction of the article is devoted to her dissertation, an aspect that is never found in other articles, so far as I know, because dissertations are minor works (with a few exceptions, like Koiter's). There's a lot discussion here about Adrianne's scholarly accomplishments in general, but the truth is that she was a post-doc, basically "just starting out". I see one established article in Lion and the Unicorn, an editorial, from 2009, a new article from a few months ago in Bookbird, and her dissertation, which is held by 1 institution, as you'd expect. These figures are very average for a junior scholar. Adrianne's WP "activism" (as I've seen it called above) is also not notable per se. We should also be very careful here to distinguish Wikipedia's situation, which is simple participation bias (a problem fixable by outreach), with actual gender discrimination (for example, being passed over for employment because of one's gender, as I have). A number of commenters above have confused these phenomena and therefore attribute more significance to this aspect of her work than it warrants. If the subject had been some other person that we could have considered in a disinterested manner, this discussion would be vastly more simple. As it currently stands, the article is still a WP:MEMORIAL and my guess is that it will stay this way, at least for a while. It is certain to be kept, but as time passes and cooler discussion prevails, it will very likely be pruned to a stub that observes simply that Adrianne was a scholar noted for her WP activities and who was killed in an accident. RIP. Agricola44 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Quite simply, I can't see how we're meant to believe that multiple, major newspapers producing lengthy obituaries of her does not, in and of itself, pass the General Notability Guideline. They are substantial, lengthy pieces. I cannot see how this isn't enough to pass it, and consider the delete votes to have not checked the sources actually available. Non-notable people do not get lengthy New York Times obituaries, nor one from the other coast, in the Los Angeles Times. Part of her notability comes from her work with Wikipedia; however, we have plenty of sources, independent of both her and Wikipedia, to demonstrate that that's genuinely notable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  diff Article created at 2014-04-19T01:45:51, and at 2014-04-19T02:09:40 is marked with an AfD tag.  Also at 2014-04-19T02:09:40 a deletion argument has been prepared and posted.  Total time, 23 minutes, 49 seconds.  This appears to be a game to see how fast an AfD can be posted.  The article currently has 22 references, which shows that sources could have been found, in addition to the first three in the article that were already enough to establish that the world at large has indeed noticed this topic over a period of time.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

25 April[edit]

• Delete – Sadly, a tragedy that happens on Wikipedia does not necessarily make it notable outside of Wikipedia. Are we going to make an article about Cynthia Ashley-Nelson because of the death of User:Cindamuse? (Steven Rubenstein is another matter, though...) This seems to be strictly a Wikipedia fanboy article. WIkipedia is not a memorial. Epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That it' s a tragedy on Wikipedia doesn't make it notable; that this tragedy was covered with lengthy obituaries in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times do. Just because someone worked on Wikipedia, and gets some notability through that doesn't make them unnotable. C.f. Jimbo Wales, Essjay, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is one of the biggest websites in the world; this will occasionally produce notability. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The answer to your question -- "Are we going to make an article about Cynthia Ashley-Nelson" -- is the answer to the question about Adrianne Wadewitz. No, because Cindamuse is not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. Having articles in major newspapers identifies notability. That's the difference between the two. For our own memorials, in wikispace, we should honor both these individuals. For encyclopedia space, we write articles about notable people. BECAUSE once people read or hear about Wadewitz in some other forum, they are going to come to Wikipedia to read more about her. The article about Adrianne Wadewitz is not for her or her family, or our community -- it's for the readers. And for those of you who say "non-notable", I would love to know what you do with the evidence of users who attest on this page that they came to Wikipedia, from the NYT article, expecting an article about Wadewitz. --Lquilter (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to both: Is the obituary the only NYT and LAT article about her? We can write a long, long list of the things she published online and accomplished in life, but until other reliable sources are provided for what she did when she was alive, it's still WP:MEMORIAL/OBITUARY. Suggest a rewrite at the very least, if not deletion. I know that the wounds from her death are still raw to the community, and I apologize, but several reliable sources about her life are also needed in addition to the ones about her death (the latter of which happens very often and isn't notable in itself). Otherwise, this is just a plain old obituary. Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - The fact that an encyclopedia is to be a comprehensive compendium of knowledge about everything runs counter to the "Notability" movement's rush to censor data that it deems to be unnoteworthy. This fine individual, who dedicated herself to her field and to the cutting edge of the dissemination of knowledge, is a fitting subject for this or any other encyclopedia. The fact that it may be "notability" that is the main argument for this article's deletion is an argument in itself for revisiting any policy with respect to "notability." Fellow editors, please keep Ms. Wadewitz's article for the sake of decency. Drboisclair (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The many and intense comments and emotions above (pro and con) reflect that including an aarticle about Adrianne Wadewitz serves at least 2 purposes. 1) It shows that Wikipedia contributors have the potential to make news (eg - like it or not, Walter Cronkite's death made news). 2) Wikipedia's development, history, and controversies at times are also newsworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunleight (talk • contribs) 04:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC) — Sunleight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep There are multiple sources from more than one event. Being a Wikipedia editor does not overrule those sources. If she was a blogger and not a wikipedia editor then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Miyagawa (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We could of course argue that a wikipedia editor is inherently un-notable, therefore any sources suggesting otherwise are clearly mistaken and must be discounted. Then there are no sources left and the subject is un-notable q.e.d. Who is going to AFD Jimbo then? Agathoclea (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there re sufficient number of sources to notability per WP:N Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• suggestion - close and re-open later Wadewitz passed away only recently, and here we are having a big wiki debate about her article. I think there's no good reason for this. We have lots of other articles to work on. Per IAR I proposed to close this and re-open it in one month, to give people time to come to terms with the loss (and perhaps for different sourcing to appear) - we could even just move the article to wiki space pending a final resolution so people can continue working on it. Either way out of respect for her, why not put this on the back burner and re-address later? Whether kept or deleted it doesn't need to be decided now. Let me know what you think - I haven't voted yet nor formed an opinion so am happy to just close it and re-open a month from now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First, I want everyone who voted Delete to know that I respect their opinions, and I want to encourage persons who may be reading this who may think that a Delete opinion is equated to anti-feminist bias to take the time to engage in discussion with those who expressed those opinions and understand the depth of some of those rationales. Having said that, I am leaning towards keep for this reason: Wikipedia itself is a notable subject; Concerns about anti-female bias within Wikipedia are a notable aspect of the Wikipedia phenomenon; and Adrianne Wadewitz (not just User:Wadewitz) was a significant figure in that aspect of Wikipedia's history. Having said that, I would like for users to consider Obi-Wan Kenobi's suggestion seriously; That we either archive the existing information somewhere or just leave it in article space and return to the question in a few months or so. KConWiki (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second your suggestion to close the RfC and possibly re-open it later. It is a matter of human dignity.--Aschmidt (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose moving this to Wikispace or other strange out-of-process behavior. We don't do this for articles about non-Wikipedians who have recently died, and who have received prominent newspaper obituaries. What makes Wikipedia editing so special that we should treat it any differently? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my suggestion was also made out of respect for friends and colleagues of Wadewitz who find themselves having to vote on notability of their colleague and weigh the issues at a time of grief. I don't care if it stays in article space I'm just suggesting we don't need to solve this right now, and a month or two of waiting might give a different perspective. What is different is that we've lost one of our own, hence my invocation of IAR.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What IAR? Your proposal is a no consensus keep -- and then someone can renominate it. Which is within rules, except one supposes that you are proposing forcing a no consensus keep? That seems unnecessary dragging out to me, who never knew her, except for what I have read in the many RS about her. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no, this is absolutely not a proposal to close as no-consensus. I am proposing to put this whole nomination on hold, while making no judgement whatsoever as to the state of consensus - and then re-opening with all of the extant !votes intact and open for new ones in a months time, and then have an admin actually close and assess the full consensus. I'm invoking IAR because this discussion may be creating divisions and controversy amongst us during a time when many are still in mourning.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then oppose IAR as uneeded. The article exists in a kept state on the Pedia. Apparently that will not change under IAR or usual procedure - unless the consensus is to delete but that seems most unlikely, given the sourcing. As for whether there are some who are too close to the subject, they should generally refrain from involvement, regardless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2014 (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.