Home • Search • Translate
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 Userfy. Consensus and arguments demonstrate a lack of notability. However I am happy to userfy this either to the users sandbox or to draft. Contact me for the move. Also, participants are to be commended for an excellent spirit of cooperation during this discussion. I wish all went this smoothly. JodyB talk 19:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC) After my own close I am correcting my close to userfy. That was actually my intent. Article has been moved to userspace for improvement. JodyB talk 16:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Marziah Karch

Marziah Karch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable blogger. Unable to find reliable third party sources about the subject to build an article. Prod removed claiming there were considerable third party sources about the author, but I haven't found them. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 12:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep This is a print author of non-self-published works (books, magazine articles), not just a blogger. Non promotional mentions online (USA Today, the Mary Sue, "It's OK to Be Smart", TeleRead conference report), media interviews as subject expert (mainly archived now - but the number is high enough to argue notability) college degree and place of residence (newspaper), occupation (newspaper), autistic child (media interview), invited speaking appearance (KCART). I also found Google Scholar citations (low, but more than zero). It's certainly easier to write most of this from the book publisher promotional bio (and I may be guilty of doing just that), but there is enough third party material to verify the main points. Trying to clean it up now. Lizardbones ( talk) 19:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Note to closing editor User:Babgordon joined a month ago and immediately began editing Marziah Karch E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
What are you talking about? I joined a year ago. Babgordon ( talk) 17:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Indeed. A year ago this editor joined, immediately began editing abut Marziah Karch, and has made a mere handful of edits since. Many about Karch. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I can find no significant independent coverage about Karch that establishes notability. There are many references in the article, but this appears to be a case of reference bombing. I have reviewed all the references in the article as of this version:
  1. a passing mention in a "stuff I saw at a science ficction convention" article
  2. a passing mention
  3. Alexa's ranking of about.com is irrelevantg to notability
  4. not coverage about Karch; a quote from her amidst a pile of quotes
  5. The URL should be [1], and is an article by Karch, not about Karch
  6. Bialik's response doesn't mention Karch (just hints) and even if it did, would not represent coverage to establish notability
  7. The fact that other blogs covered this is original research when listing out blogs
  8. ditto above
  9. ditto above
  10. completely insubstantial
  11. an article about massive open online courses that uses Karch as an example of somebody who takes them, it fails to establish notability
  12. only serves to validate that karch presented at a conference
  13. a list of graduates that only serves to validate her alma matger
  14. a self-submitted profile - not a reliable source or independent
  15. serves only to validate that Karch was a speaker at a conference
  16. a mention, and is not substantial coverage
  17. being intereviewd doesn't establish notability
  18. ditto above
  19. ditto above
  20. ditto above
  21. ditto above
  22. ditto above
  23. ditto above, and there is not indication on which TV station or network this was broadcast on. From the youtube info, it appears to be a community college production.

Based on that analysis, one of the sourcing is useful for establishing notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

*Help me fix this page.* "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" So multiple of these "passing mentions" and "quotes in a pile of quotes" should do that, no? The references were to juried panel presentations - not open to the public. I'll remove if they don't count towards notability. I'm confused about why multiple news places asking to interview someone as a SME wouldn't show that they were notable in their field, but Wikipedia rules are what they are, I guess. Also, the Merit Pages citation is not a self-submitted profile. The bio can be edited, but the badges cannot. Used to verify Phi Kappa Phi, which is invitation only. [1]. There are way too many references here, and it feels spammy because of it. I erred too much on the side of including, because my first submission (for someone else) got dinged for not having enough. Now he's back with only two references and no flags, so go figure. Lizardbones ( talk) 18:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://meritpages.com/
Coverage needs to come from reliable source; these would be things like magazine, newspapers, etc., which exercise editorial selection in the topics they cover. This coverage needs to be significant, and be be about the person. Being interviewed as a subject matter expert means that the interview is about the subject matter, not the expert. All of the sourcing that I analyzed above fails to denote notability in one way or another. In other words, they contribute exactly zero towards establishing notability, and when one adds up a bunch of zeroes, the answer is still zero. As for merit pages in particular, there is no real selectivity in the creation of the pages as the site explains that "... if you’re already at one of the hundreds of colleges and universities in the Merit network today, you don’t have to: your institution is building a verified, public record of your accomplishments and achievements on your own Merit page." And while being in Phi Kappa Phi, although a nice feather in one's cap, it does not make for automatic inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Ok, so I should just ignore the idea of verifiable for now and concentrate on the subjective concept of "notability." Help me understand this. Nothing in the general notability guidelines says that an interview isn't a third-party reliable source. What you are saying is that an interview about topic x is about topic x and not the person. At the same time, the interview (when it is only with one person) has to establish why the interviewee is an expert on topic x before asking about topic x. So that part of the interview is about "the person," correct? One such interview could be seen as just be a passing reference and establish that person is a tech writer, but a bunch of them should establish some sort of notability? She's given a lot of TV/radio interviews, some of which were as a tech writer and some of which were about other biographical aspects. However, combined those would contain more than a stub's worth of writing. And then once the subject is notable, the rest of the information just needs to be verifiable. Correct? Lizardbones ( talk) 23:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
While I am constitutionally perpetually prepared to reconsider when presented with new evidence, I am fully persuaded that Karch is not notable at present. Perhaps in a future. Not now. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Exactly how "with this writer about her work" do they have to be? I'm looking for clarification here. It wasn't given earlier. The interviews in question are typical expert interviews where the interviewer first establishes that the writer is an expert in the field by asking a few questions/making intro statements about the work. Is that portion not "about the writer?" Isn't this how expert interviews normally work? That may not be "deep" coverage of the writer's work, but "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Lizardbones ( talk) 05:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Being interviewed about an article you have written is not notable. Although being interviewed about an article you have written is some slight indication of notability, What we're looking for are multiple articles with phrases like "Karch is a leading expert on...", "karch, a widely read blogger and important figure in the field of..." Profiles in which recognized, reliable new source discuss your life, career. Articles that discuss the significance of your contributions to a field. Very often people in creative fields (artists, authors) or fans of early career writers create Wikepedia pages prematurely. It is necessary to wait until professional journalists write such artists up, or until they win significant Awards. A fan or an author would be better advised to focus on their work than to attempt to create a Wikipedia too early in a career. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Ok - I've also found and added two third-party print book profile blurbs.Blurb is the wrong word and not what I meant. I didn't mean a dustjacket quote. I meant a mention within a book. Sorry if this is editing above the line for relisting, but it would make no contextual sense otherwise. Lizardbones ( talk) 15:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The TV and radio interviews appear to do exactly what you claim they should do. First introducing Karch as an expert on the topic of Google as a writer for About.com and then asking her opinion about Google. They were not about a single article. But wouldn't multiple interviews about single articles also be noteworthy? The standards here seem very arbitrary. Lizardbones ( talk) 01:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Per WP:INTERVIEWS, interviews are generally accepted as evidence toward notability. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 17:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
    • That is an essay, and not an officil guideline or policy. The notability portion is short and refers to interviews were the interviewee id the topic. That's not really the case here. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
      • OK, but can you cite a policy that supports your assertion that interviews are not considered evidence of notability? Generally they are. In my view, her notability rests on two things – she is the Google expert at About and a frequently quoted expert on tech in general, and she was an influential blogger at Wired. If that's good enough she's OK, if not she fails. That's where we need sources for notability. For example, the actress chose to respond to her blog post on Wired when she could have responded to someone else. That is blogger notability, such as it is. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 11:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
        • Interesting, User:Margin1522. 1.) being interviewed by a publication as an expert on a topic must be meaningful at least to some degree, but if I was going to use it that way in an article I was writing I would expect to be able to quote the interviewer, something like: 'we're here at WP today interviewing Ms. Expert, one of the leading figures in whatever research...' It's being able to cite the reputable publication that makes it count. 2.) How big a deal is being a Google About expert? Honest quesiton. Is it a paying gig? Is getting to be one competitive? 3.) How can it be established that she was an "influential" blogger at Wired. And, as with Google About, is it a paid job? is getting to be one competitive. 4.) Thing is, she has a really unique name, yet most of what comes up in a quick search are social media pages one can produce for oneself. People with names like John Shea) can be hard to look up. But with a name as unique as Marziah Karch, I expected more, like maybe a profile in some online publication other than the sites of publishers she writes for. Of course she has 948 followers on twitter. What am I missing? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
          • To answer your questions, which are interesting angles 2) I looked it up, and yes, apparently About.com writers are paid and according to this very competitive. 3) Is "being quoted by peers" not establishing influence? There are several high profile blogs quoting her, but I was told none of those counted. It looks like writing for wired.com is paid and competitive, too. Lizardbones ( talk) 02:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/Question I completely disagree about expert interviews. I don't think news outlets call someone for an expert interview if they think they are unnoteworthy. It really seems like you're determined to delete this article, though. The last time I created an article and did not have time to clean it up before it got speedy deleted, they reverted it to a draft on my page and it was later fixed and republished. Is that a possibility here? Lizardbones ( talk) 06:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
    • User:Lizardbones. Useful contribution would be to find descriptions of Karch and her work published in reliable news sources other than the ones by which she is employed (those are eligible, i.e., if the Johnson County Community College newsletter publishes an article about how "our senior education technologist, Marziah Karch, is a leading expert on..." it is reliable and can be added to the page, but it would be far more persuasive if a descriptor like that appeared in the technology section of a general newspaper, even if only in passing as part of an article in which that newspaper quotes Karch as an expert). And, btw, I very much doubt that anyone is determined to delete this article in a personal sense, rather, fact is that Wikipedia is deluged by self-promotion attempts by less-than-notable musicians, writers, small business, wanna-be movie moguls and the like. If you don't believe me, look through the deletion debates. All of us are volunteers trying to sort the notable form the self-promoting hopefuls. When you accuse editors of targeting Ms. Karch for deletion, you do not help her case. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
      • User:E.M.Gregory That was not in any way meant to accuse anyone of "targeting" anyone. Merely observing the same thing you're saying now. I cruised through the AFD files, and I saw that the bias is towards delete rather than include. I do understand it, even if I don't agree with it in this case. My first article (on someone else) had issues and was reverted to my sandbox. It was later reintroduce and, as far as I know, it has not been challenged. I was just offering to do the same thing with this article if need be. My first choice would obviously be to keep it and improve it. Do interviews at the college where she worked really count as reliable sources? What about the books by other authors that mention her? Lizardbones ( talk) 02:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
        • There is no magic formula, there are guidelines, but most people who merit pages far exceed these minimums. An interview or profile in a house organ can be cited for facts, but it will not have much weight when judging notability. That really does take outside sources. Here, while it is good to a book mention karch, it is better if they describe her work in a specific way "the person who created the... whatever" And best to have an in depth description of her work and how it influenced a field. If her work is described in books, by all means include what is being said about it on the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 02:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
          • That seems like it would turn a neutral description into an advertisement, but I'll see what I can do in the next few days. Lizardbones ( talk) 06:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
            • Comment – That would be good. My overall impression is that the article is not quite there yet. Part of the problem is that our notability requirements are not a very good match for Internet personalities. Basically we want reliable 3rd-party sources talking about the person, and by reliable we mean with some kind of editorial oversight. If we can answer some of E.M.Gregory's questions, that will help. Another idea is that reviews of her books may talk about her. Or if we can quote the interviews and what they say about her, instead of just mentioning that they happened. Anyway there is no rush about this. If you would like more time to work on it, Userfy (copying to your Sandbox, etc.) is always an option. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 07:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy – OK, since we have good-faith efforts to improve the article, I'd like to !vote userfy with a suggestion to have it reviewed at AFC. The reviewers there should have some good advice about the kind of sources we need. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy seems like a sensible option, but on the basis that this go to WP:DRV before being recreated, not WP:AFC. AFC reviewers look at things like verifiability and copyright, they don't decide complex questions of notability like some form of one-person AFD. It's not fair to expect them to do so (and when we do they regularly get it wrong). DRV is designed for exactly this purpose - to review drafts of new articles where previous articles have been deleted. They can (and can properly) review a deletion decision in a manner that allows a consensus to be established as to whether or not the original concerns (that led to deletion) have been addressed. St★lwart 111 03:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Isn't that basically saying just delete it? Look, I've added a few quotes like I was asked. I've tried to make this similar to some of the other women technology writer pages. I can try to do more work on it later, but I'd really hope other people would try to fix it before then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizardbones ( talk • contribs) 07:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Basically, and I can opine that way if you don't want this moved to your user space rather than just deleted. The prevailing opinion seems to be that the article should be deleted, the subject not being sufficiently notable to warrant an article. The article's similarity to that of other "women technology writers" is irrelevant, unfortunately. But Margin1522 suggested userfication to allow you to continue to work on it. I have no objection to that. St★lwart 111 07:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Right, and I don't think we need to make a big production out of it. It's almost there. One nice thing about AfC is that reviewers with an interest in the subject can choose to review it, so they might be able to give better advice than we can. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 12:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
My concern is that we'd be setting this up for WP:G4 deletion which would almost certainly go to DRV anyway. Multiple editors have contributed here - to suggest that consensus can be reviewed/overturned by one non-admin AFC reviewer is asking for trouble, in my view. St★lwart 111 22:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Wouldn't that only apply if it showed up again without any improvements? Wouldn't the whole point of reverting it to a draft be to make edits? Lizardbones ( talk) 03:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I very much doubt that an improved article that passes AfC would be speedily deleted. Nor would it go to DRV. DRV is for reviewing actions by admins and closers. If it passes AfC and someone still objects, we will be back at AfD for Round 2 ;-) –  Margin1522 ( talk) 04:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
AFC stuff gets deleted all the time and DRV is also, don't forget, for securing permission to recreate something previously deleted at AFD, in light of new information, a better draft, etc. "Passing AFC" is misnomer - articles are simply accepted by a random reviewer, often no more experienced than the person who created the draft article. St★lwart 111 04:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Stalwart111: If you read the criteria for WP:G4, it specifically says "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space or converted to a Draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." It might get speedied if Lizardbones tried to be sneaky and created the identical article again, but no admin is going to speedy an article that has been userfied and passed through AfC. It would have to come back here again. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 04:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Yeah, it's the explicit improvement part I'd be concerned about, especially given that the assertion is that the current version is "pretty close". So it's userfied, not that much changes and then it's approved by AFC. I think an admin absolutely could delete it. But hey, I don't really care - I just think AFC is a very broken process, I wouldn't ever use it and I actively discourage others from using it. Its inherently bitey. DRV is faster, crawling with admins and is a solid "yea" consensus at the end. My aim is not to make life difficult for proponents; quite the opposite. St★lwart 111 05:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, that's true. By almost there I mean we are close to finding all the sources that exist. Whether that will be enough remains to be seen, but let's give it the best try. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 06:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
On that I think we agree 100% St★lwart 111 09:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The first two rounds of this discussion happened before I made a bunch of edits everyone was suggesting I make. Can someone please list what remains to be done, or do I need to do that over at AFC after it is userfied? Assuming it gets userfied and not killed, but that seems like the direction everyone is taking. Lizardbones ( talk) 06:39, 18 March 2015 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marziah_Karch&oldid=1138060561"
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 Userfy. Consensus and arguments demonstrate a lack of notability. However I am happy to userfy this either to the users sandbox or to draft. Contact me for the move. Also, participants are to be commended for an excellent spirit of cooperation during this discussion. I wish all went this smoothly. JodyB talk 19:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC) After my own close I am correcting my close to userfy. That was actually my intent. Article has been moved to userspace for improvement. JodyB talk 16:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Marziah Karch

Marziah Karch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable blogger. Unable to find reliable third party sources about the subject to build an article. Prod removed claiming there were considerable third party sources about the author, but I haven't found them. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 12:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep This is a print author of non-self-published works (books, magazine articles), not just a blogger. Non promotional mentions online (USA Today, the Mary Sue, "It's OK to Be Smart", TeleRead conference report), media interviews as subject expert (mainly archived now - but the number is high enough to argue notability) college degree and place of residence (newspaper), occupation (newspaper), autistic child (media interview), invited speaking appearance (KCART). I also found Google Scholar citations (low, but more than zero). It's certainly easier to write most of this from the book publisher promotional bio (and I may be guilty of doing just that), but there is enough third party material to verify the main points. Trying to clean it up now. Lizardbones ( talk) 19:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Note to closing editor User:Babgordon joined a month ago and immediately began editing Marziah Karch E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
What are you talking about? I joined a year ago. Babgordon ( talk) 17:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Indeed. A year ago this editor joined, immediately began editing abut Marziah Karch, and has made a mere handful of edits since. Many about Karch. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I can find no significant independent coverage about Karch that establishes notability. There are many references in the article, but this appears to be a case of reference bombing. I have reviewed all the references in the article as of this version:
  1. a passing mention in a "stuff I saw at a science ficction convention" article
  2. a passing mention
  3. Alexa's ranking of about.com is irrelevantg to notability
  4. not coverage about Karch; a quote from her amidst a pile of quotes
  5. The URL should be [1], and is an article by Karch, not about Karch
  6. Bialik's response doesn't mention Karch (just hints) and even if it did, would not represent coverage to establish notability
  7. The fact that other blogs covered this is original research when listing out blogs
  8. ditto above
  9. ditto above
  10. completely insubstantial
  11. an article about massive open online courses that uses Karch as an example of somebody who takes them, it fails to establish notability
  12. only serves to validate that karch presented at a conference
  13. a list of graduates that only serves to validate her alma matger
  14. a self-submitted profile - not a reliable source or independent
  15. serves only to validate that Karch was a speaker at a conference
  16. a mention, and is not substantial coverage
  17. being intereviewd doesn't establish notability
  18. ditto above
  19. ditto above
  20. ditto above
  21. ditto above
  22. ditto above
  23. ditto above, and there is not indication on which TV station or network this was broadcast on. From the youtube info, it appears to be a community college production.

Based on that analysis, one of the sourcing is useful for establishing notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

*Help me fix this page.* "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" So multiple of these "passing mentions" and "quotes in a pile of quotes" should do that, no? The references were to juried panel presentations - not open to the public. I'll remove if they don't count towards notability. I'm confused about why multiple news places asking to interview someone as a SME wouldn't show that they were notable in their field, but Wikipedia rules are what they are, I guess. Also, the Merit Pages citation is not a self-submitted profile. The bio can be edited, but the badges cannot. Used to verify Phi Kappa Phi, which is invitation only. [1]. There are way too many references here, and it feels spammy because of it. I erred too much on the side of including, because my first submission (for someone else) got dinged for not having enough. Now he's back with only two references and no flags, so go figure. Lizardbones ( talk) 18:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://meritpages.com/
Coverage needs to come from reliable source; these would be things like magazine, newspapers, etc., which exercise editorial selection in the topics they cover. This coverage needs to be significant, and be be about the person. Being interviewed as a subject matter expert means that the interview is about the subject matter, not the expert. All of the sourcing that I analyzed above fails to denote notability in one way or another. In other words, they contribute exactly zero towards establishing notability, and when one adds up a bunch of zeroes, the answer is still zero. As for merit pages in particular, there is no real selectivity in the creation of the pages as the site explains that "... if you’re already at one of the hundreds of colleges and universities in the Merit network today, you don’t have to: your institution is building a verified, public record of your accomplishments and achievements on your own Merit page." And while being in Phi Kappa Phi, although a nice feather in one's cap, it does not make for automatic inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Ok, so I should just ignore the idea of verifiable for now and concentrate on the subjective concept of "notability." Help me understand this. Nothing in the general notability guidelines says that an interview isn't a third-party reliable source. What you are saying is that an interview about topic x is about topic x and not the person. At the same time, the interview (when it is only with one person) has to establish why the interviewee is an expert on topic x before asking about topic x. So that part of the interview is about "the person," correct? One such interview could be seen as just be a passing reference and establish that person is a tech writer, but a bunch of them should establish some sort of notability? She's given a lot of TV/radio interviews, some of which were as a tech writer and some of which were about other biographical aspects. However, combined those would contain more than a stub's worth of writing. And then once the subject is notable, the rest of the information just needs to be verifiable. Correct? Lizardbones ( talk) 23:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
While I am constitutionally perpetually prepared to reconsider when presented with new evidence, I am fully persuaded that Karch is not notable at present. Perhaps in a future. Not now. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Exactly how "with this writer about her work" do they have to be? I'm looking for clarification here. It wasn't given earlier. The interviews in question are typical expert interviews where the interviewer first establishes that the writer is an expert in the field by asking a few questions/making intro statements about the work. Is that portion not "about the writer?" Isn't this how expert interviews normally work? That may not be "deep" coverage of the writer's work, but "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Lizardbones ( talk) 05:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Being interviewed about an article you have written is not notable. Although being interviewed about an article you have written is some slight indication of notability, What we're looking for are multiple articles with phrases like "Karch is a leading expert on...", "karch, a widely read blogger and important figure in the field of..." Profiles in which recognized, reliable new source discuss your life, career. Articles that discuss the significance of your contributions to a field. Very often people in creative fields (artists, authors) or fans of early career writers create Wikepedia pages prematurely. It is necessary to wait until professional journalists write such artists up, or until they win significant Awards. A fan or an author would be better advised to focus on their work than to attempt to create a Wikipedia too early in a career. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Ok - I've also found and added two third-party print book profile blurbs.Blurb is the wrong word and not what I meant. I didn't mean a dustjacket quote. I meant a mention within a book. Sorry if this is editing above the line for relisting, but it would make no contextual sense otherwise. Lizardbones ( talk) 15:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The TV and radio interviews appear to do exactly what you claim they should do. First introducing Karch as an expert on the topic of Google as a writer for About.com and then asking her opinion about Google. They were not about a single article. But wouldn't multiple interviews about single articles also be noteworthy? The standards here seem very arbitrary. Lizardbones ( talk) 01:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Per WP:INTERVIEWS, interviews are generally accepted as evidence toward notability. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 17:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
    • That is an essay, and not an officil guideline or policy. The notability portion is short and refers to interviews were the interviewee id the topic. That's not really the case here. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
      • OK, but can you cite a policy that supports your assertion that interviews are not considered evidence of notability? Generally they are. In my view, her notability rests on two things – she is the Google expert at About and a frequently quoted expert on tech in general, and she was an influential blogger at Wired. If that's good enough she's OK, if not she fails. That's where we need sources for notability. For example, the actress chose to respond to her blog post on Wired when she could have responded to someone else. That is blogger notability, such as it is. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 11:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
        • Interesting, User:Margin1522. 1.) being interviewed by a publication as an expert on a topic must be meaningful at least to some degree, but if I was going to use it that way in an article I was writing I would expect to be able to quote the interviewer, something like: 'we're here at WP today interviewing Ms. Expert, one of the leading figures in whatever research...' It's being able to cite the reputable publication that makes it count. 2.) How big a deal is being a Google About expert? Honest quesiton. Is it a paying gig? Is getting to be one competitive? 3.) How can it be established that she was an "influential" blogger at Wired. And, as with Google About, is it a paid job? is getting to be one competitive. 4.) Thing is, she has a really unique name, yet most of what comes up in a quick search are social media pages one can produce for oneself. People with names like John Shea) can be hard to look up. But with a name as unique as Marziah Karch, I expected more, like maybe a profile in some online publication other than the sites of publishers she writes for. Of course she has 948 followers on twitter. What am I missing? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
          • To answer your questions, which are interesting angles 2) I looked it up, and yes, apparently About.com writers are paid and according to this very competitive. 3) Is "being quoted by peers" not establishing influence? There are several high profile blogs quoting her, but I was told none of those counted. It looks like writing for wired.com is paid and competitive, too. Lizardbones ( talk) 02:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/Question I completely disagree about expert interviews. I don't think news outlets call someone for an expert interview if they think they are unnoteworthy. It really seems like you're determined to delete this article, though. The last time I created an article and did not have time to clean it up before it got speedy deleted, they reverted it to a draft on my page and it was later fixed and republished. Is that a possibility here? Lizardbones ( talk) 06:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
    • User:Lizardbones. Useful contribution would be to find descriptions of Karch and her work published in reliable news sources other than the ones by which she is employed (those are eligible, i.e., if the Johnson County Community College newsletter publishes an article about how "our senior education technologist, Marziah Karch, is a leading expert on..." it is reliable and can be added to the page, but it would be far more persuasive if a descriptor like that appeared in the technology section of a general newspaper, even if only in passing as part of an article in which that newspaper quotes Karch as an expert). And, btw, I very much doubt that anyone is determined to delete this article in a personal sense, rather, fact is that Wikipedia is deluged by self-promotion attempts by less-than-notable musicians, writers, small business, wanna-be movie moguls and the like. If you don't believe me, look through the deletion debates. All of us are volunteers trying to sort the notable form the self-promoting hopefuls. When you accuse editors of targeting Ms. Karch for deletion, you do not help her case. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
      • User:E.M.Gregory That was not in any way meant to accuse anyone of "targeting" anyone. Merely observing the same thing you're saying now. I cruised through the AFD files, and I saw that the bias is towards delete rather than include. I do understand it, even if I don't agree with it in this case. My first article (on someone else) had issues and was reverted to my sandbox. It was later reintroduce and, as far as I know, it has not been challenged. I was just offering to do the same thing with this article if need be. My first choice would obviously be to keep it and improve it. Do interviews at the college where she worked really count as reliable sources? What about the books by other authors that mention her? Lizardbones ( talk) 02:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
        • There is no magic formula, there are guidelines, but most people who merit pages far exceed these minimums. An interview or profile in a house organ can be cited for facts, but it will not have much weight when judging notability. That really does take outside sources. Here, while it is good to a book mention karch, it is better if they describe her work in a specific way "the person who created the... whatever" And best to have an in depth description of her work and how it influenced a field. If her work is described in books, by all means include what is being said about it on the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 02:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
          • That seems like it would turn a neutral description into an advertisement, but I'll see what I can do in the next few days. Lizardbones ( talk) 06:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
            • Comment – That would be good. My overall impression is that the article is not quite there yet. Part of the problem is that our notability requirements are not a very good match for Internet personalities. Basically we want reliable 3rd-party sources talking about the person, and by reliable we mean with some kind of editorial oversight. If we can answer some of E.M.Gregory's questions, that will help. Another idea is that reviews of her books may talk about her. Or if we can quote the interviews and what they say about her, instead of just mentioning that they happened. Anyway there is no rush about this. If you would like more time to work on it, Userfy (copying to your Sandbox, etc.) is always an option. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 07:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy – OK, since we have good-faith efforts to improve the article, I'd like to !vote userfy with a suggestion to have it reviewed at AFC. The reviewers there should have some good advice about the kind of sources we need. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy seems like a sensible option, but on the basis that this go to WP:DRV before being recreated, not WP:AFC. AFC reviewers look at things like verifiability and copyright, they don't decide complex questions of notability like some form of one-person AFD. It's not fair to expect them to do so (and when we do they regularly get it wrong). DRV is designed for exactly this purpose - to review drafts of new articles where previous articles have been deleted. They can (and can properly) review a deletion decision in a manner that allows a consensus to be established as to whether or not the original concerns (that led to deletion) have been addressed. St★lwart 111 03:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Isn't that basically saying just delete it? Look, I've added a few quotes like I was asked. I've tried to make this similar to some of the other women technology writer pages. I can try to do more work on it later, but I'd really hope other people would try to fix it before then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizardbones ( talk • contribs) 07:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Basically, and I can opine that way if you don't want this moved to your user space rather than just deleted. The prevailing opinion seems to be that the article should be deleted, the subject not being sufficiently notable to warrant an article. The article's similarity to that of other "women technology writers" is irrelevant, unfortunately. But Margin1522 suggested userfication to allow you to continue to work on it. I have no objection to that. St★lwart 111 07:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Right, and I don't think we need to make a big production out of it. It's almost there. One nice thing about AfC is that reviewers with an interest in the subject can choose to review it, so they might be able to give better advice than we can. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 12:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
My concern is that we'd be setting this up for WP:G4 deletion which would almost certainly go to DRV anyway. Multiple editors have contributed here - to suggest that consensus can be reviewed/overturned by one non-admin AFC reviewer is asking for trouble, in my view. St★lwart 111 22:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Wouldn't that only apply if it showed up again without any improvements? Wouldn't the whole point of reverting it to a draft be to make edits? Lizardbones ( talk) 03:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I very much doubt that an improved article that passes AfC would be speedily deleted. Nor would it go to DRV. DRV is for reviewing actions by admins and closers. If it passes AfC and someone still objects, we will be back at AfD for Round 2 ;-) –  Margin1522 ( talk) 04:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
AFC stuff gets deleted all the time and DRV is also, don't forget, for securing permission to recreate something previously deleted at AFD, in light of new information, a better draft, etc. "Passing AFC" is misnomer - articles are simply accepted by a random reviewer, often no more experienced than the person who created the draft article. St★lwart 111 04:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Stalwart111: If you read the criteria for WP:G4, it specifically says "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space or converted to a Draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." It might get speedied if Lizardbones tried to be sneaky and created the identical article again, but no admin is going to speedy an article that has been userfied and passed through AfC. It would have to come back here again. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 04:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Yeah, it's the explicit improvement part I'd be concerned about, especially given that the assertion is that the current version is "pretty close". So it's userfied, not that much changes and then it's approved by AFC. I think an admin absolutely could delete it. But hey, I don't really care - I just think AFC is a very broken process, I wouldn't ever use it and I actively discourage others from using it. Its inherently bitey. DRV is faster, crawling with admins and is a solid "yea" consensus at the end. My aim is not to make life difficult for proponents; quite the opposite. St★lwart 111 05:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, that's true. By almost there I mean we are close to finding all the sources that exist. Whether that will be enough remains to be seen, but let's give it the best try. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 06:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
On that I think we agree 100% St★lwart 111 09:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The first two rounds of this discussion happened before I made a bunch of edits everyone was suggesting I make. Can someone please list what remains to be done, or do I need to do that over at AFC after it is userfied? Assuming it gets userfied and not killed, but that seems like the direction everyone is taking. Lizardbones ( talk) 06:39, 18 March 2015 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marziah_Karch&oldid=1138060561"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE