Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danah boyd

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 of the debate was Keep (thank you WP:SNOW) --Cyde Weys 06:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] danah boyd

As with Robin Hunicke above, this is a "vanity page created by a friend." Ph.D. student who does research in social networking, but no more notable than any successful Ph.D. student out there, "premiere researcher" or no. NTK 04:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. Feezo (Talk) 07:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We already convened a panel of Wikipedians to discuss the relevancy on Talk:Danah_boyd three weeks ago. And her page survived that. Since then, Boyd appeared on the O'Reilly factor, on Fox News, to talk about the internet. So she's increasingly visible! Again, for the second time this Spring, keep. --JustinHall 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Justin, there wasn't so much a "convened panel of Wikipedians", as just two or three people talking about the article since March 22 [1], which is a very different thing than the formal (and much more serious) Deletion Review process that's going on right now. Please, can you provide any proof about the Fox News appearance, like a link to her name on the Fox News site, or any other major press (CNN, MSNBC, BBC)? At the moment, I'm on the fence about her bio, but leaning towards "Delete", since the way that the bio is currently written, it reeks of a vanity article (please read the policies at WP:VANITY). The article has been trying to claim that Danah is amazingly famous, but if she's so famous, how come there's nothing in the article about her being mentioned in major news sites? So far, the way things look, is that this article is just by a bunch of her friends trying to claim that she's well-known, but trust me, that does not go over well among seasoned Wikipedia editors. Also, the obvious sockpuppet/meatpuppet votes (see WP:SOCK) that are piling up below are not helping matters, since it's obvious to anyone who understands Wikipedia, that the votes are by newbie users, and as such are near meaningless. Unless some serious credible evidence can be provided that Danah is genuinely well-known, I am probably going to vote "delete", myself. Please please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and provide some solid credible proof about danah's fame. Otherwise the article should probably go away until there is enough credible media attention to make it stick. --Elonka 18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to a video of her Fox news appearance: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Nfyw2KYHWw and here are some screencaps of the same (in case YouTube gets sued out of existence): http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2006/03/30/tonite_on_oreil.html -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep danah is all over, so this seems silly to delete here at wikipedia. She is a leading authority about all sorts of social and internet topics, and there are people who want to look up here accomplishments and information about her. -- Mary Hodder 14:39, 11 April 2006 ((First and only comment ever posted by User:128.111.166.190, 15:40, April 10, 2006)
• Keep This can hardly count as a vanity page. boyd is a committed, articulate, insightful and prolific scholar and public intellectual on the topic of networked social communities. It's hardly relevant whether a friend created a page or not. --Julian Bleecker 14:47, 10 April 2006 (Posted by User:Jbleecker, 15:48, 10 April 2006)
• Keep As the talk page shows, we went some rounds on this and figured that this is an interesting border case in terms of notability. I did some addition of relevant cites that I believe makes the case for her being notable and she definitely passes WP:PROFTEST (which is a proposed policy). Of course, I think even danah would agree when I say Wikipedia would not be much of a different place without this article... but I could have sworn that the standard was to err on the side of inclusion for borderline notable cases. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Later: I should be clear: I would hate to see that the fact that someone like myself, a friend and colleague, edited her article would lead to it being deleted. I can commit to not editing it, if that would help. I did some more poking around on Lexis and found at least one other news article from a major paper that is a profile of danah^[1]. Also, it might be the case that the article appears to be a vanity peace because of my recent edits where I tried to track down cites to investigate notability. As to some of Elonka's specific criticisms: The NYT profile isn't enough? What about the SF Chron profile I've linked to here (that I would add to her piece but it might increase the vanityness)? Also, it seems premature to claim sockpuppetry as no one has been accused of using alternative logins to edit this or other articles related to this issue, no? Granted, the fact that they are new to Wikipedia will affect the weight of their votes, as it usually does. I should also finally note that danah is friends with Jimmy Wales and even got him to speak here at our school (which I was fortunate enough to record) [2]; if you download that mp3, the woman you hear introducing Jimbo before his talk is danah. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I agree that this page should be kept. I feel like I run into Danah Boyd time and time again on the internet. She recently participated as a speaker at the eTech conference put on by O'Reilly. In her company were speakers such as Jesse James Garrett and Tim O'Reilly. [3] --Jonlesser 16:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Can we at least get the case right? Ben Aveling 10:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind - I see the problem. Ben Aveling 10:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Boyd has written several well-received papers, and has been profiled in several major media sources, including a major 2003 profile in the New York Times [4], 2004 San Francisco Chronicle [5], at least two interviews on NPR, and a televised March 30, 2006 appearance on The O'Reilly Factor. I've extensively rewritten the danah boyd page to bring it into line with Wikipedia format -- in my opinion, the notability requirements are definitely met. --Elonka 17:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• A handful of paper and citations but not enough for me to think she qualifies under the professor test. Might qualify as a notable blogger. Passing mentions in newspapers and 5 minutes of fame on a popular TV show does not amount to squat. Being a friend of Jimbo does not qualify as notable. Lots of google hits. But when your first google hit begins "hi, this is me", you have to wonder about the quality of them. I'm not convinced she's not notable, but I am convinced the page does not establish notability. Delete without prejudice unless the article is trimmed to focus only on what is notable about her, and expanded to show what is notable about her - not just claim that she is. It should be obvious to the reader that she is notable, and why. What is her great contribution to the universe? Regards, Ben Aveling 17:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Was this comment made after Elonka's rewrite? -- Joebeone (Talk) 17:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it may have been a cross-post. Ben, please take another look when you get a chance? I think I've addressed your concerns. --Elonka 17:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks like a preponderance of the evidence to me. Not very notable, but notable enough. RGTraynor 19:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC).
• Keep. Danah's work is important and she is important in bringing systematic evidence to bear about MySpace. She is a featured speaker at conferences and the media. Indeed, I direct all media inquiries about MySpace to her. Given that she has good evidence, whereas others just talk, her work is both notable and important, and Wikipedia folks interested in MySpace would be well directed to her/it. Who cares if she is a PhD student or a 63-year p;d Harvard PhD (like me). Credentialism is a poor criterion. Danah IS important. Barry Wellman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.167.177 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Notes

1. ^ Whiting, Sam (Apr 25, 2004). "The Profiler; Why the online masses act the way they do". The San Francisco Chronicle. Pg. Q6

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.