Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-03-16/Discussion report
Is an interim WMF executive director inherently notable?
Who needs a crystal ball, when you've got Wikipedia?
- Disclaimer and author's note: I have !voted in the AfD, but i try to not pass on any opinions in this publication.
A few complaints and mild disagreements
30 September 2022
Wikimedia LLC and disinformation in Japan
28 March 2021
Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes
28 March 2021
Maher stepping down
28 February 2021
Wikipedia celebrates 20 years of free, trusted information for the world
31 January 2021
It didn't take longer than one day from the time Katherine Maher was announced to become an interim executive director at the Wikimedia Foundation (see Signpost coverage) until an article was created about her on the English Wikipedia. This has caused some controversy and discussions.
It all started when an IP-editor inserted a proposed deletion-tag (PROD-tag), which was objected by another user within five minutes.
| “ | Hoi, the executive director of the WMF IS notable. | ” |
| — GerardM, diff (talk) | ||
The tag was later removed by a third editor, with the following edit summary:
| “ | clearly notable; deletion is not cleanup | ” |
| — Pigsonthewing, diff (article) | ||
Following which, a new editor nominated the article for deletion (diff), per the English Wikipedia's deletion criteria.
| “ | Editors (and long-term editors at that) have, unfortunately, used trivial tit-bits and tried to present Katherine as being notable. She has not won any high-level awards in her field, there are no independent extensive bios by reliable sources out there […] Being ED of the WMF, in itself, doesn't even make one notable. And let's not forget she's only an interim ED. It's more WP:CRYSTAL that people are assuming she will become notable in due course. | ” |
| — MedalSmeddle, diff 1 (AfD), diff 2 (AfD) | ||
The nominating user stated that the article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, while others stated that the article should be kept because the subject of the article most likely will attract attention in the near future, and some suggested that the subject may be inherently notable.
| “ | [Executive Director] of WP inherently notable, coverage will come. | ” |
| — Montanabw, diff (AfD) | ||
Other users took note of this comment and responded with arguments to move it to draft space until such time the subject has gained enough notability in mainstream media.
| “ | "Coverage will come in time" is the very definition of WP:CRYSTAL, if you want to argue that, move it to the draft space instead. | ” |
| — Insertcleverphrasehere, diff (AfD) | ||
The outcome of said deletion nomination is still under discussion; feel free to weigh in with your policy-supported opinions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Maher.
The usage of promotional images in articles
_crop.jpg)
- Author's note: Since this discussion is in Swedish, I will not include quotes, but will try to summarize views and opinions instead.
Freely licensed cover arts of Ms. has been in discussions on the Swedish Wikipedia lately (diff). Even if no other image exists on Commons, it seems like using these images on articles is controversial, due to the promotional nature of the images themselves. Examples that were the subject of the discussion were the infobox-image of Beyoncé, this real photo and this cover art (see images to the right).
Discuss this story
I like the most popular pages. --violetnese 18:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]