Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Temple-Wood
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
— User:Rhododendrites, 02:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:BLP1E||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Notability)