Deletion of Emily Temple-Wood

Comment: per No such user, SJK and . The coverage is ephemeral. The sources do not show the notability of Temple-Wood herself, they just show the notability of Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Sails past  with ease. The delete arguments here seem to have a lot more to do with ideology than Wikipedia policy; if a basketball player had this depth of coverage this nomination would never have happened. The BLP1E arguments are nonsense: she is "notable for one event" in the same way that a professional basketball player is "notable for one event". It does not target people who are primarily notable for one ''thing'', which would strike most of Wikipedia's biographies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: She has received significant coverage from |reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish her own |notability, with regards to having an article on this encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: into Wikipedia community per . Emily does a good job, but as the policies state, merely being verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion.  and  emphasize that in case of multiple coverage notability is still presumed, not guaranteed
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTWHOSWHO||WP:BASIC||WP:GNG)

Comment: Clearly she is notable ''within'' Wikipedia, but nothing outside of Wikipedia is really given for an independent claim of notability.   does ''not'' appear to consider "internal notability" as making anyone "notable' for our outside users. Perhaps "projectspace" could be a home for "biographies of Wikipedians" but mainspace is likely not utile to most outside users. And she might still become notable otherwise - so this is in no way a bar to an article at that time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Per Iridescent.  Yes, that's right, the notability bar IS so low that all those "non-encyclopedic" people do meet the GNG, and DO get articles if someone cares to write them.  Does that mean pop-culture gets overrepresented? Absolutely: the sources are plentiful and easily accessible, unlike things found only in dead-tree books, which functionally means almost anything before 1990, but that IS the notability rulebook under which AfDs have been decided, like it or not.  Likewise, the  and  arguments are completely off base: What "event" is the subject associated with? A "campaign" to create articles on women scientists is not an event by any |reasonable definition of the word: an event cannot readily be logically broken down further into separate events, and each creation of an article is a separate event.  Further, she's not |low profile, and so thoroughly fails the middle prong of the three-point  test
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:WI1E||WP:WIALPI||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Event (philosophy)|Events such as shootings or bombings are easy to identify. If per Opabinia regalis' interpretation is correct and BLP1E applies, what is the event? What we are dealing with here is not an event but a process, which is a type of social movement that persists in time. Once the ontology of notability is worked out, it is clear the BLP1E does not apply but  does
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: If the way you described it were the case, I'd probably agree with you, {{u|StAnselm}}. We shouldn't have articles based on a single story that a bunch of other publications ran with, without adding anything themselves (I argued as much at another Wikipedian's AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seedfeeder|Seedfeeder, although that one was -- astonishingly -- kept). But that does not look to be the case here for two major reasons. First, there's some coverage preceding the recent flurry, and second, multiple sources within that flurry, while obviously inspired by the Wikimedia blog, added content. So, for example, there are quotes in the http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35787730 BBC article and the https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/03/11/how-one-young-female-scientist-decided-to-cope-with-online-harassment/ Washington Post article that do not appear in the https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/03/08/alchemy-turning-harassment-into-women-scientists/ Wikimedia blog. That it has a good amount of the same information doesn't mean it's republished or doesn't "count" as separate coverage. Ok, so then there's the separate coverage. The coverage from before this month wouldn't satisfy / on its own, but there's enough of it such that there's no  kind of argument to be had. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/netha-hussain/countering-the-systemic-bias-on-wikipedia--an-interview-with-emily-temple-wood_b_5064947.html an interview in Huffington Post from 2014, another https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/10/11/emily-temple-wood-profile/ Wikimedia blog profile (which I recognize has limited value as a  on Wikipedia), https://medium.com/@DorothyR_Howard/10-wikipedians-partnering-with-medical-organizations-to-improve-online-health-information-a7707a72b7d3#.ya4iiypf0 Medium, and there are somewhat-more-than-a-mentions in the http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/happy-birthday-sexist-wikipedia-why-do-men-still-control-our-his/ Telegraph, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/ The Atlantic, and http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/arts/artsspecial/warming-up-to-the-culture-of-wikipedia.html NY Times. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:BLP1E||WP:RS)

Comment: Classic , bordering on self-promotion. Fails GNG, as is readily apparent in the lede
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: WP:SIGCOV and .  While I have concerns that we not treat her article differently due to the 'incestuous' context, there is enough there about her and the related subjects implicit in her effort, so that otability is established
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N)

Comment: There are several sound arguments for keeping this article that have been identified by other editors in this discussion, and I hope that whomever closes this discussion will seriously consider the issues related to systematic biases in the coverage of women in popular media, academia, and the Wikipedia community. However, I would like to present a different argument, which I don't think has been expressed yet in this discussion. Specifically, I would like to discuss the "legislative history" of our notability guideline. When the rules for notability were first drafted, there was considerable debate about how the guideline should be defined, and whether the guideline should exist at all. However, many prominent editors argued that significant coverage in reliable sources was necessary to substantiate the |verifiability of claims in an article. For example, Jimbo Wales wrote in 2004: {{tq|"It isn't the lack of '''fame''' that makes the page objectionable, it's the lack of verifiability. It's just someone's random musings about a private matter, and there's no way for external confirmation or disconfirmation. Therefore, it isn't encyclopedic."}} (citing Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 4, emphasis in original). Therefore, when discussing whether a subject passes , it is important for us to consider whether there is sufficient independent coverage in secondary sources to verify the accuracy of the information in the Wikipedia article. In this case, there are ample sources to substantiate the accuracy of the information presented in this article. Indeed, Emily Temple-Wood is the subject of a significant number of articles from major news sources. For those reasons, I think we should not delete this article. Best
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:GNG)

Comment: Firstly, I think the nomination statement is wrong: the depth, quality, and variety of reliable publications covering the subject is well over the threshold for . But, they are all very recent and all cover the same basic information, so I don't think they yet pass the "enduring notability" test of  and the "more than one thing" test of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: Unless the editor specifically requests deletion (which I would support out of courtesy) I feel this bio meets the standards set at . However, I feel the nominator
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)