Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Hyde

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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay Hyde

Doesn't appear to be notable. Given one award for founding an organization we don't have an article on. 379 Google hits, No Google News hits. --Rory096 03:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think the article in its current form demonstrates that she is notable. TruthbringerToronto 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? --Rory096 05:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Unclear why a user with over 500 edits should be required to explain further to you. He (she) seems experienced enough to know notability when he (she) sees it. Captaintruth 12:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Um. have you seen TruthbringerToronto's afd comment record recently? He/she goes for keep 99% of the time, even in the most flimsy of cases Bwithh 02:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• The last time I checked, this was a fact-based encyclopedia, not a faith-based one. And by your logic, since I have many more edits than 500, my Notability Detection skills are obviously much much stronger, especially using my +12 Wand of Reliable Sources. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• My point is that the voter by referring to "the article in its current form" is by implication also referring the the articles numerous citations. What I don't like is another editor's effort to discredit a vots by an experienced user. Captaintruth 04:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not attempting to discredit anything, please assume good faith. The article at the time had no reliable citations that I didn't mention, and he didn't say anything like "I disagree that a Glamour magazine thing alone doesn't make her notable" or anything, and so I wanted him to clarify. By the way, AfD is not a vote. --Rory096 07:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry for using the term "vote". I am experienced enough to know that AFD is not a vote. I know that opinions can be disregarded if discredited (and by using this word I am not accusing you of anything, I am simply using it as short hand for an attempt to make an opinion count for less in determining the final consensus when the time comes to decide whether to delete or not -- it is had to see how you are not doing this). That is exactly why I am attempting to counter your attempt to discredit "keeps" in an AFD discussion in which the keep opinions (is that a better word than "vote"?) clearly outnumber the "deletes", all keeps are from experienced users, and none of the keeps are suspect for other reasons (eg ballot stuffing) and thus the consensus forming seems to be in favor of keeping the article. Captaintruth 12:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Asking someone why they voted the way they did is an " effort to discredit a vote by an experienced user"? On what planet? More to the point, you still haven't explained the magical power that allows an experienced user -- at a glance -- to immediately discern notability. Hey, I'm more "experienced": doesn't my "experience" automatically count for more? No? Why not? --Calton | Talk 00:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Its still nice to know why this editor believes the subject to be notable. Wickethewok 19:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. She runs an organization, which, doesn't appear to itself be notable (it's not national (Boston only) see [1]), for which she was given a bunch of second tier awards. The coverage in Harvard Gazzette hardly counts as it's a local paper. Student Leader, maybe - but the article doesn't assert her notability outside of the organization. Does she pass the 100 year test? no. Megapixie 05:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete No news hits is a problem. If your claim to fame notability is a charity it's important to be in the news. ~ trialsanderrors 06:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No news hits, but Hyde has been featured in several national magazines -- see cites in article. Captaintruth 14:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have run out of steam, from all I can see, but I added a Weak to my Delete. ~ trialsanderrors 16:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Mildly interesting, and accords with policy. David L Rattigan 11:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What policy is that? Things need to be more than interesting to be included in an encyclopaedia. --Rory096 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Not just a student leader, as this organization seems to be extremely active across Boston. Also, the Glamour Magazine award (an award given by a high-profile national magazine; the magazine published an article about Hyde) establishes a more national notability. Also featured in Seventeen Magazine when she received an award from that magazineCaptaintruth 12:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Both national magazine articles are pretty weak - she is one of 10 people mentioned in the glamour magazine article (she gets a few paragraphs) and one of several mentioned in the article (again a few paragraphs). Personally I think this falls fowl of (WP:BIO):

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)

i.e. the works in question are trivial, at just a few paragraphs in length. Additionally 17 is hardly a good source of information, likewise Glamour magazine. If it was Newsweek, Time, New York Times, Washington Post, etc, I might be less inclined to question it's value. Megapixie 00:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This smacks of elitism. Glamour and Seventeen are both high-circulation magazines. They are magazines (seventeen in particular) that focus on the demographic that this orgainzation is relevant to. Even if there were 10 people selected, when we are talking about a national-circulation magazine that is particularly relevant to the demograhic in question, such a mention is quite indiciative of notability in the organization's context. Captaintruth 01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it smacks of encyclopedic importance, and an unwillingness to confuse Wikipedia with a telephone directory or alumni newsletter. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you haven't bothered to respond directly to any of my arguments about these publications. Captaintruth 04:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I was merely responding to your inane "smacks of elitism" comment. But to respond, being lumped in with a nine others pretty much defines "trivial mention", dunnit? --Calton | Talk 00:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay but first address mine - the organization that she runs is not de-facto notable per WP:ORG being only local in scope. The articles publicize her work with that organization. Are we saying either:

A) The organization is notable (despite being local) - the two publications back that up.

B) The organization is not notable (since it doesn't meet WP:ORG) - but she is since she has featured in two national publications.

If it's A - then that's entirely a different arguement, which you haven't addressed. If it's B then a couple of paragraphs in two articles spaced several years apart is hardly fame-worthy notability.

To address your point regarding elitism: absolutely right I consider Time, Newsweek, etc. better publications. As to demographics, I'm not clear what you are saying - that fact that she might be more or less notable to a twelve year old girl hardly seems relevent. Does a mention of a computer programmer in a national linux magazine, make him more notable, because the magazine is targeted at his demographic ? Or does an absence of mentions in mainstream press make him less notable ? Megapixie 12:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from my point about demographics, the fact remains that Glamour and Seventeen are among the top circulation magazines in the US and shouldn't be discounted simply because you happen to think they are low grade. Glamour is #27 in circulation with 2,371,986 average monthly circulation.[2] Seventeen is #31 with 2,034,462. Both therefore exceed the average circulaiton of such well-known magazines as US News & World Report, Entertainment Weekly and Money (to name a few notables). True Time is #16 and Newsweek is #16, but these rankings show Glamour and Seventeen are both in the league of the most widely circulated magazines. None of the Linux-type magazines (or similarly narrow-interest magazines) you mention as an anaology are even in the top 100, so the analogy is pretty useless. As for your "elitism", many (myself, an Economist reader, included) consider Time and Newsweek to be very low-brow and trashy (I wouldn't waste a minute on either, they read like they were written for idiots and just don't dig too deep), so I imagine your assertion that Time and Newsweek are so much "better" than Glamour and Seventeen truly is a matter of perspective. Captaintruth 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So I take it that you assert B that she is notable purely because of the magazine mentions which are pretty weak to pass WP:BIO. You also assert that the Economist > Newsweek (I agree completely). I therefore embrace and extend Ecomomist > Time => Newsweek > Glamour >= Seventeen. Which brings us back to Glamour and Seventeen not being very good sources of notability. And since they are her only claim to notability - it's therefore a pretty weak claim. Megapixie 13:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, my underlyign point is that, if we want objective measures of notability based on magazine articles we should look at the circulation of the magazine being cited and not subjective conceptions of which magazine is "better".Captaintruth 15:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Captaintruth, though I personally would rather see it become an addendum to an article on the organization than a bio. -Dawson 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per cited published stories, meets WP:BIO. Aguerriero (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the Glamour and Seventeen stories. Although I'll admit that as a Boston resident (and Greater Boston resident since before she entered kindergarden) I've never heard of her or the organization, I'm anything but in the relevant demographic. GRBerry 01:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A student leader, with minor, very shallow notability. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough and meets basic standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• That is, she's a carbon-based lifeform. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• now now, not all carbon based life forms are notable. This one, however, is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, notable, with plenty of awards. Royalbroil 00:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Cute, but nn. Hope she gets a free webhost for her resume. Tychocat 07:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of sufficent notability for an encyclopedia. Fails WP:BIO. Despite awards, she hasn't achieved enough for an article here. Bwithh 02:17, 25 June 2006 (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.