Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:Note an article about a different individual has now been moved to this name.--Docg 10:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alison Wheeler

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler (2nd nomination)
Alison Wheeler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

My rationale: By all accounts Alison is a very nice person. But I am convinced that she does not meet notability guidelines and so this article can be classed as vanity. But, as always on this wonderful site, it is for the entire community to decide. User:Terrence Wrist [1] —Random832 22:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • FYI - She tendered her resignation as part of a dispute, I believe, but it was not accepted and she is still with the Board. Contrary to the comment below, it isn't "some minor uk based wikipedia project" it is the branch of Wikimedia in the United Kingdom. I'm not saying this is categorically enough to establish notability, it may not be. Avruch T 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Unless we modified our notability guidelins to say an affiliation with Wikimedia could be considered a factor to establish notability, it wouldn't be. It's just a job or volunteer role, which in and of itself is not anything special for determining notability. Like being a CEO of a corporation--in and of itself, even if the firm is notable, being in charge of it is not automatically. Lawrence § t/e 22:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to be have been involved with some minor (and it appears to be defunct or inactive) uk based wikipedia project, not notable. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not a notable person. Majorly (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:DVote non-notable CWii(Talk|Contribs) 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete A nice, but not a notable person. -- Barliner  talk  23:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, founder of several notable organisations. I have no idea whether she is nice or nasty, and don't see the relevance. However, she didn't write this article, so accusations of vanity are misdirected.-gadfium 01:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete she does sound really nice. But because she's involved with wikipedia, doesn't mean we can have an article on this non-notable lady, or we should really allow newcomers to have the articles they want for all their mates, bands etc. The sources for this article are mostly a mailing list.:)Special Random (Merkinsmum) 01:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable accomplishments, but additional references would be helpful. --Eastmain (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep We should be prejudiced neither for or against people involved with the encyclopedia. Head of a notable organisation.DGG (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Sources for article include 1)her website 2) a mailing list. Presently there are no reliable sources for an article about the subject. The appearance of the BBC article in the external links section seems to be nearly a non-sequitor, with the subject apparently commenting on beards and sandals. ("I think that is an outdated image. It was very true back in the Liberal days when the beard and sandals quota was very high.") Seriously, read it... daveh4h 02:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No well-referenced claims of notability that I can see. --John (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, with no accusations of vanity and no prejudice against recreation if notability increases. At the present time, this fairly high-profile (within the community) article has nowhere near the quantity of required coverage by reliable, third party sources. That an article could undergo this much scrutiny and remain so unreferenced seems to me an indicator of insufficient notability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability is not clearly established here. I'm willing to change my vote if one decent source can be found (not her website or a mailing list) verifying that she has even the most marginal claim to notability. Everyking (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete completely NN. ViridaeTalk 08:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy DeleteDefinitely non-notable. Cannot believe this article was created in the first place, let alone survived an initial AFD. 152.78.23.174 (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Would reconsider if additional sources were (properly and fully) cited. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (just) Whilst the above points are valid, she does appear to be notable enough, being involved in a number of different organisations. Also, if an important member of WikiMedia isn't notable, who is? Weebiloobil (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't see "important member of WikiMedia" in our notability guidelines. Further, I believe that we should be extra cautious when judging the notability of such persons as (a) we're probably biased in such a judgement and (b) we should always strive to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems notable enough to me. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete nn-bio. Questionable as speedy, but not notable enough for me in an AfD. Prodego talk 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- fails to meet notability guideline. I spent 20 minutes looking for sources using Google News' archive search and came up with nothing besides the passing mention cited in the article. --A. B. (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I can't see how WP:GOOGLEHITS would take precendence secondary sources, which form the basis for this article. MrPrada (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler. There are enough separate achievements here, plus primary and secondary sources, to improve this article. MrPrada (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Way short of third party sources. Possibility of future notability, but not there yet. Sperril (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Nothing notable about being a volunteer for the wikimedia project. Fails WP:BIO. Is there really anything more to say? 194.189.32.65 (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Having interacted with Alison on the project and found her to be a good person I am predisposed to saying Keep, and I'm looking for reasons to say so. A mention in the Guardian is fairly good, however she is used a source for an article on Wikipedia, and is not the focus of the report. Her status as source is that she is chair of Wikimedia UK, a Wikimedia Foundation organisation which doesn't get an article on Wikipedia, simply a redirect. So it's a source, along with the BBC one, that affirms she exists, but it doesn't support notability. Notability appears to be asserted within the article itself by the number of organisations Alison is associated with, and her status within those organisations. She pops up in various places, and it might be a fair question that somebody may ask - who is this Alison Wheeler? So, even though peripherally mentioned, does the accumulation of references and organisations in the article give just enough justification? SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment on comment. I can't tell you how to think, or how to vote. But in my view that Alison is a good person (hey, all lib dems are good people, that's why they've no chance of getting power :P) shouldn't really count one way or the other. Neither would I place a vote and look for reasons using policy - I'd look at policy (including, btw, WP:IAR) and use that to shape my vote. But I'm not a "proper" Wikipedian, and of course YMMV. Terrence Wrist (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry - it's not uncommon for me not to make myself clear. I'm really good at explaining other things and other people, but hopeless at explaining myself! The opening sentence of my comment was me saying that I am human, and that certain things will influence me in a certain direction. I was declaring that I have encountered this person, and so I have a natural tendency to be favourable. Having said that, I then describe one of the stronger references and say that I found that reference to be wanting. To put that more clearly: "Even though I'd prefer to keep the Alison Wheeler article, and so therefore I am looking to give the benefit of the doubt to the material and the references, I find even the strongest reference in the article to not support the notability of the subject." I then look at the accumulation of material in the article and ask if people feel that would be enough to justify notability. If we are looking strictly at policy then the article would stand, because Alison Wheeler is verifiable in several reliable sources. But we are not looking at policy we are looking at community consensus on notability. It's a slightly different thing. Community consensus is arrived at via discussions on pages like this one. The Notability (people) guideline is informed by and updated by what happens in arenas like this AfD. People may consult the guidelines for assistance in consensus, but the guidelines themselves do not decide what happens here - consensus does. As such, asking the question, does an accumulation of mentions in reliable sources, and an involvement - often at a significant level - in a number of notable or semi-notable organisations make a person notable enough for a Wiki article, is - I feel - appropriate. How people respond to that question may have an impact on me deciding to !vote, and which way I !vote, but the main reason for asking the question was to raise the question and the issue attached to it. I thought people may reflect on it, and the closing admin may consider it. I do not have have to actually !vote to make a contribution to this discussion. I tend to think of AfD as Articles for Discussion rather than Articles for Deletion. I hope that helps! SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • very weak keep Her work in various orgnizations appears to be arguably notable and some of the coverage (such as the BBC article) gives more details. She seems to just not pass BIO but I would be surprised if she didn't pass it soon enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Changing opinion to delete if she does end up meeting BIO at some point we can recreate it then. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete if she passed WP:BIO later fine, but for now not.--Docg 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete As a (minor) contributor to the article, looking over it again, I can't see how non-public-facing roles in various small organisations and some cursory mentions in the press can make someone notable. I and many other editors could probably create articles on themselves based on such weak criteria, and I'm afraid keeping this article could set a precedent that may open the floodgates to articles being written on every editor, their grandma and their pet dog based on a few minor references like a picture once in the local paper and being mentioned in an Internet discussion. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 03:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Poor sources, poor notability, COI concerns, BLP concerns - BLP says delete questionable claims, and I question the unsourced claims that say nice things about her; even if true are they balanced, do they present a truly representative portrait, in short is the article truly NPOV? I doubt it. And if we were to create a truly NPOV article, she might ask to delete it based on her lack of notability. Delete. Delete. Delete. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.