I find my thoughts about this heading in so many different directions, I'm not really sure where to start.
Of all the people on Wikipedia, I would have thought that people on this list would be intensely aware of the hazards of having a biographical article about oneself on Wikipedia, particularly one that will likely be little-watched, and for whom huge numbers of editors will have significant conflicts of interest in editing. This is particularly true of articles about women, it seems, and especially women of borderline notability. This is a target painted on Sarah's back. She may not realise it yet, but having spent a good chunk of the last several years dealing with "vandals and trolls", she's a really juicy target.
Indeed, one could easily say that the creator of this article had a significant conflict of interest in writing an article about someone who is an advisor to the author's non-profit, AND who has made significant edits to the author's article. Imagine if Jimmy Wales went around writing biographical articles about the WMF Board's advisory council members - we all know what digestive products would hit the oscillating ventilator. (Of course, the major variable is the quality of writing - I am happy to grant that it's well written.) Conflict of interest is already a very major battleground on the project, although we've not really discussed it much on this list.
I'm sorry but I think this was a bad idea. It seriously increases the risk that other wikimedians will find themselves with an unwanted biography that will be pretty well impossible to remove from the project. That might be fine for some, but it's a significant concern for a lot of others, and I know of several wikimedians who are similarly borderline notable but who go out of their way to avoid media or turn down speaking engagements because they do not want a Wikipedia article about them. I'm afraid this low bar to notability is so unhealthy that it's had an effect on our own community.
Risker/Anne