Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Stierch (2nd nomination)

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. No point in dragging this out longer. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Stierch

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Sarah Stierch
• Articles for deletion/Sarah Stierch (2nd nomination)

Sarah Stierch (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)

Our Wikipedia colleague and former WMF employee Sarah Stierch doesn't meet our notability threshold. WP:BASIC states that:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

When it comes to direct coverage of her herself, the news sources given in the article largely comprise articles about Wikipedia's gender gap, in which she features in an interview context and is given a brief biographical outline - these include the Independent and Women's eNews articles. The TechRepublic and Daily Dot articles are simply interviews. There's an Indianapolis Star article from 2001 about her early career, which I can't assess as it's paywalled, but it wouldn't be sufficient to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. Apart from those, there are citations to her own website and a WMF blog post, which are obviously not independent.

The remaining three news sources relate to her departure from the WMF, and it's starting to look like a WP:BLP1E issue. If that hadn't happened, would she be notable by our standards? I don't believe so. This article really only exists as a Wiki[p/m]edian insider topic. — Scott • talk 15:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: I think we must be particularly strict when we write articles about ourselves. The version that I felt was most in compliance with my (strict) reading of the BLP and sourcing policies was [1]. I don't claim to be an authority over English Wikipedia BLP policies though. --Nemo 18:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - the subject has said they would welcome the article to be deleted, ([2]) and in this instance, since it is focused on a negative event (being fired from work) and she hasn't made a concerted effort to be notable outside of the Wikipedia project itself, I think we can be within policy to nuke it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per Sarah's request. Northern Antarctica (₵) 21:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Effectively argued from several perspectives FeatherPluma (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per Sarahs request. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete as she'd agreed on it. ///EuroCarGT 02:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete, though from what I can see, Sarah hasn't requested deletion, she's simply saying she won't miss the article if it goes. Though she's been covered by the UK Independent it tends to be in passing, or wholly negative about her recent dismissal. Wikipedians will have a distorted view of her promininence and, if she was a 'normal' punter, I fully expect this would be an uncontroversial deletion. Sionk (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per subject's stated preference (not insistence), and due to her marginal notability per our guidelines.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete and Comment Based on the unanimous views of the numerous commenting editors, with which I concur, might this not be an appropriate candidate for a speedy close? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, relative to [3]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete — Ultimately, I agree with everything outlined in the above nomination by Scott. Sarah Stierch is an indispensible asset to Wikipedia and all it stands for, but her notability as an individual is very borderline in the grander scheme of things. As with everyone else, what tips the scales for me is her expressed preference for deletion. This is the kind of case that reminds us why we have the BLPRD clause in the first place: not everyone who's done something worthwhile needs to have their life publicised on Wikipedia, especially not if they don't want it to be. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per the stated preference of the subject and lack of any pressing reasons to keep this. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I think any admin would be perfectly within their rights to delete this per WP:SNOW given the above comments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 13 April 2014 (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.