Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Temple-Wood
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
— User:Notecardforfree, 05:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Verifiability)