Deletion of Adrianne Wadewitz

Comment: This seems to be a controversial issue. We have a NYT obituary, but it is rather short, and Noam talks about Wikipedia all the time, so the significane factor here is low. I don't know Adrianne because I wasn't much active while she was, but I'm sure she did good work. Sadly, after I analyzed the guidelines, I find this article to fall under . Without a young death, there would be nothing. I think people here are taking Adrianne's Wikipedia work too seriously and letting it cloud there voting
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Subjects of NYT obituaries are notable, full stop. And there are enough other sources (e.g. the ones given by jcm above) to satisfy the letter of the  "multiple sources" requirement
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I knew Adrianne and worked with her a little; I don't think that means my comments should be discounted, but I'm disclosing it in case the closing admin thinks so.  She doesn't pass , but I think the NYT obit makes the difference -- if the NYT decides that the combination of her academic work and work on Wikipedia makes her notable, then we should accept that.  I think many of the other sources cited are not evidence that she is notable, however; being quoted or interviewed doesn't make you notable.  Notability is derived from articles about the person, not articles in which the person is quoted.  In this case I think the obit is enough
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: It is both sad and inappropriate that we should be having this discussion just a few days after her death, all the more as she clearly meets GNG. And, because the significant coverage she has received relates to the entirety of her activity as a Wikipedian, not just to her death, it does not fall under /
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: I was afraid someone would create an article and it would be nominated for deletion. I even put it on my watchlist a couple of days ago. For Wikipedia/Wikimedia related people we should extra careful because we're biased. I know I am. I met Adrianne several times in person so I'm not going to !vote on this. Some observations. I agree with  and  links. If the article would contain more information and references from before she died I think these points are addressed. I am a bit reluctant to consider the http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/business/media/adrianne-wadewitz-37-wikipedia-editor-and-academic-dies.html NYT article as a strong source because Noam has been List of Wikipedia controversies|actively reporting the Wikimedia movement for quite some time. I :File:Board room of the New York times.jpg|met him in person and I'm pretty sure he and Adrianne met too
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: I'm with WWGB, Bretonbanquet, and Tarc on this. I don't see how contributing to Wikipedia makes anyone notable, and as an academic, she fails  big time. There is absolutely nothing in the article or sources that make her out to be anything other than an average, unremarkable scholar whose hobby was editing Wikipedia. While her contributions to the project are appreciated, article space is no place for a eulogy. Special:Contributions/71.139.142.132|71.139.142.132
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SCHOLAR)

Comment: Sadly, a tragedy that happens on Wikipedia does not necessarily |make it notable outside of Wikipedia. Are we going to make an article about Cynthia Ashley-Nelson because of the death of
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: there re sufficient number of sources to notability per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Satisfies my reading of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: edit conflict}} Yes, |Wikipedia is not a memorial and her biggest achievement was Wikipedia-related. However, her death was covered in multiple |reliable sources and ''Editing Wikipedia'' is notable in its own right. The article itself could use a bit of cleanup (i.e. "...and a rare figure in the Wikipedia community." What exactly does that mean?), but that's got nothing to do with whether or not this could be considered "keepable" or not. As mentioned above,  is irrelevant when there's enough reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:RS||WP:COI)

Comment: to people who are arguing for delete because of , what's the One Event that this article is supposed to be folded into? March 29, 2014 Joshua Tree Rock Climbing Accidents? A career's worth of work is not One Event under any reasonable reading of the term
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: First, let me say that this article was created at perhaps the most inopportune time. I, like probably many of you, have the feeling that we're "scavengers fighting over the corpse" &ndash; distasteful in the extreme &ndash; but we're all here, so evidently fight we must. (Footnote: Perhaps a policy on a "waiting period" is needed, so articles can be considered with cooler heads...we're not a news source and it's clear that the  of this event is creating enormous problems.) The reasons for "keep" are obvious and unavoidable: that which has been noted is notable (here by NYT obit, among others). However, let me play devil's advocate. There's very little independent information in the NYT source (besides vital stats) on which to base an article. Most of it talks about her activities as a WP editor &ndash; information that necessarily comes from WP itself. In a very real sense, this is Circular reference|referentially circular. Quite a large fraction of the article is devoted to her dissertation, an aspect that is ''never'' found in other articles, so far as I know, because dissertations are minor works (with a few exceptions, like Koiter's). There's a lot discussion here about Adrianne's scholarly accomplishments in general, but the truth is that she was a post-doc, basically "just starting out". I see one established article in The Lion and the Unicorn (journal)|Lion and the Unicorn, an editorial, from 2009, a new article from a few months ago in Bookbird: A Journal of International Children's Literature|Bookbird, and her dissertation, which is held by http://www.worldcat.org/title/spare-the-sympathy-spoil-the-child-sensibility-selfhood-and-the-maturing-reader-1775-1815/oclc/819572657&referer=brief_results 1 institution, as you'd expect. These figures are very average for a junior scholar. Adrianne's WP "activism" (as I've seen it called above) is also not notable ''per se''. We should also be very careful here to distinguish Wikipedia's situation, which is simple participation bias (a problem fixable by outreach), with actual Sexism|gender discrimination (for example, being passed over for employment because of one's gender, as I have). A number of commenters above have confused these phenomena and therefore attribute more significance to this aspect of her work than it warrants. If the subject had been some other person that we could have considered in a disinterested manner, this discussion would be vastly more simple. As it currently stands, the article is still a  and my guess is that it will stay this way, at least for a while. It is certain to be kept, but as time passes and cooler discussion prevails, it will very likely be pruned to a stub that observes simply that Adrianne was a scholar noted for her WP activities and who was killed in an accident. RIP
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:MEMORIAL)

Comment: Unremarkable academic career; being a Wikipedia editor, however prolific, is not notable.  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: JSFarman hits the nail on the head: "her notability is not based on |her death -- it's based on her her work as an educator, activist, and editor." It's difficult to be utterly objective, but we must be careful not to overcompensate by raising the bar higher for notable subjects who are Wikipedians
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per . A variety of sources is already available, and I also found 2 published yesterday (23 Apr), which may or may not have already been mentioned.http://www.nptelegraph.com/news/np-grad-wikipedia-editor-dies-in-calif/article_c7be4462-ab39-53ad-b3e8-9055b51d3bdf.htmlhttp://www.latimes.com/obituaries/la-me-adrianne-wadewitz-20140424,0,1077455.story#axzz2zoBhjuCd While the subject may not have met , her academic achievements are noted as well as her activities as a Wikipedian. Hence  does not apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: Despite the use of obituaries as references, her notability is not based on |her death -- it's based on her her work as an educator, activist, and editor.  As noted above, there are other references that can (and should) be added, but the NYT obit in and of itself demonstrates notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: I am surprised at the level of coverage this is getting to the point it meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I worked with the subject of this article and I feel that she would want me to post as I saw fit. Leaving aside the obituary from ''The New York Times'', the subject of this article does not meet  and even with the NYT obituary the subject does not meet specialized criteria like  or . The major argument for notability for this person is an obituary from ''The New York Times'', which many people here are interpreting as definitive proof of notability. I say delete because in past conversations I have had with Wikipedians it was thought that an obituary in this paper was not sufficient to prove notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: per Karanacs and per additional  considerations. There is little specific and detailed coverage except for a fairly short NYT obit. Wikipedia has an inherent COI in creating articles about subjects whose main claim to notability is their Wikipedia contributions. I am not saying that such subjects can never be notable, but I think that the credibility of Wikipedia requires that we apply a significantly higher notability standard in such cases compared to ordinary biographical articles.  In this specific case notability is fairly marginal  according to our regular standards, which translates into a 'delete' in my opinion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: It remains to be seen whether a couple of quotes in larger articles constitutes . Also, what is "unprecedented" about the coverage of her death
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: obituaries in multiple reliable sources, including the NYT, convey notability by themselves, and she's been featured in other articles published by reliable sources during her life. The content of the obits are largely about her achievements on Wikipedia, which clearly the NYT and other  cited consider significant, even if the commenters above do not. Fortunately, we are able to defer to  on this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)