Meh; she's marginally notable - if this wasn't a pressure topic then it
would probably be easy to delete (there are reams of bloggers you could dig
up comparable sourcing for, none of especial notability). Very little of
biographical detail exists about here; i.e. to make writing a *biography*
worthwhile (but I've always thought we have way to low standards for this).
There is a good argument that, rather than give the poor woman a biography
for people to attack, we should wait for the video to come out and cover it
all then.
Tom
On 15 June 2012 23:02, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Russavia,
I'm not sure much will be accomplished discussing notability or lack
thereof on a mailing list.
I opened a section on the bio's talk page called "Notability" a couple
days ago, and I haven't seen anybody start to develop a policy-based
argument that she doesn't meet the notability threshold. If you feel
strongly about it, I think participating in that discussion would be the
best way to move forward. (Or you could skip that and just nominate the
article for AfD again if you feel the previous nomination was insufficient.)
But notability is defined by the kind of third party coverage an
individual (or topic) receives. The reason for them getting that coverage
isn't generally considered relevant to determining notability. In this
case, it seems she is clearly past the notability bar; but again, if you
disagree, please do say so on wiki and outline your reasons.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Jun 15, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Russavia wrote:
I wouldn't call that an AFD
It was open for an entire hour and a half.
Yeah it sucks she met trolls on the internet -- god knows this isn't
something new for Wikipedia -- but she just isn't notable.
In fact, this is now setting a precedent that any blogger who has been
interviewed by another blogger can get their own article.
That's not good.
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> The article underwent AfD and has been kept.
It was a Snow Keep.
>
> Sarkeesian wrote about her experience here:
>
http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-and-misogyny-via-wikipe…
>
> Andreas
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Gillian White <
whiteghost.ink(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I agree that notoriety, as opposed to notability, is not a good
precedent
>> for Wikipedia, whether the subject is man
or woman.
>>
>> Gillian
>>
>>
>> On 13 June 2012 23:11, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've had a look at the article, and I can't believe that this
hasn't
>>> yet undergone AfD.
>>>
>>> As it says on the talk page, being a feminist and having a blog and
>>> youtube channel doesn't make one notable.
>>>
>>> There are no reliable sources in the article which discuss Sarkeesian
>>> in-depth -- there is an interview on a blog, but this can't be used to
>>> base notability on.
>>>
>>> As it stands now, Anita (who is hardly notable) had the misfortune to
>>> meet some trolls on the internet (welcome to Internet peoples), and
>>> now she is basically notable, because her un-notable Wikipedia
>>> biography was trolled with a pr0n imagem, and someone reported on it.
>>>
>>> Anyone wishing to get their bio onto WP should use this case as an
>>> example of how to go about it.
>>>
>>> The article should be at AfD, because as it stands now, it is
>>> everything that WP is not.
>>>
>>> Russavia
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Well, I've taken a look at the history and have identified
"BLP"
>>>> violations
>>>> going back to October 2011; as such, I've extended the existing
>>>> semi-protection for a full year. Some extensive cleanup has already
>>>> taken
>>>> place, as well as some useful article expansion.
>>>>
>>>> Risker/Anne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 13 June 2012 02:04, <koltzenburg(a)w4w.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Gillian,
>>>>>
>>>>> thank you for this information
>>>>>
>>>>> do you have any suggesting as a positive action that members of this
>>>>> list
>>>>> might take, in this case as well as
>>>>> generally?
>>>>>
>>>>> open for suggestions,
>>>>> Claudia
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:33:38 +1000, Gillian White wrote
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> The Community is aware of this and is discussing it. However,
it's
>>>>>> worthwhile bringing to the attention of this list that one
woman's
>>>>>> efforts
>>>>>> at studying gender stereotyping (reported in The New
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Statesman<
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/internet/2012/06/dear-internet-
>>>>>>
why-you-cant-have-anything-nice>) have resulted in massive and
nasty
>>>> vandalism of Anita Sarkeesian's
page on Wikipedia
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian>.
>>>> Gillian
>>>
>>>
>>> thanks & cheers,
>>> Claudia
>>> koltzenburg(a)w4w.net
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Pete Forsyth
peteforsyth(a)gmail.com
503-383-9454 mobile
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap