Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heather_Wilde_(author) References

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude ( talk) 23:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Heather Wilde (author)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO Tenuous notability. Refs are blogs and trade papers with very minor coverage. Passing mention is several ref. scope_creep ( talk) 17:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 02:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete lack of quality reliable sources to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - quality of the sources is low, some things don't seem to come from the source referenced. Smallbones_(
smalltalk) 04:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. You have got to be kidding me. This is a résumé. Won a Stevie? You get one of those by nominating yourself and paying a fee that's ranged from $200 to $505 with an additional fee to attend the awards dinner ( Stevie Awards itself is quite the SPAM, too), right in there with paying to have yourself added to any of the plethora of vanity Who's Whos. – Athaenara ✉ 12:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete as PROMO. Was started by a month-old acct, after which it was jumped-on a few hours later by several SPAs for further development. May be an autobio, but either way, it seems to exist solely for promotion. Agricola44 ( talk) 15:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment Like many articles created by someone closely connected to the individual, there are unsourced bio details here. Such as labeling her a software engineer or Jewish, as well as the entire career history section titled "Video games". I don't see substantiation for any of these. By the way, CTOs aren't necessarily software engineers. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete the article and also the photos. I find this weirdly written. It mentions a lot of things that nobody cares about and leaves out the things that could prove notability if they existed. Consider the sentence "She later joined Phil Libin again at his third company, Evernote while working from her sailboat." The claim that she worked from a boat is a trivial detail to an encyclopaedia, and mentioning it is highly suggestive of vanity, while the same sentence makes absolutely no attempt to say what she actually worked as, which should be the whole point of it. The whole article has the feel of insider information, knowing details that can not be referenced and prioritising trivial details promoting or aggrandising the subject over the things appropriate to an encyclopaedia. Speaking at a TEDx event is not the same as the main TED events and does not confer notability. There is nothing to even indicate who the other woman in the second photo is. I have no idea what a "community engineer" actually is/does. Also, am I misinterpreting it, or does the photo look like it is a selfie? If so, that increases the suspicion that this is an autobiography further. The editing history of the article looks a lot like a tag-tem COI scenario and might merit further investigation. Anyway, I see no clear indication of real notability and that alone dooms the article. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Article's sourcing is out of wack, some sources cited make no (or trivial) mention of the article subject. From what I see on the article as it stands, this is a WP:NAUTHOR failure.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 23:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete: notability may be subject to debate, but the article is pretty redolent of the promo factor. Possibly a REFUND is due (but in chump change, LOL). Quis separabit? 18:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment As a contributor to this page, I can address comments - the sailboat is a major point to the notability. Wilde's life on the boat & RV during the Evernote years has brought her notability in its own right and has been written about and covered on international news outlets. Not only that, she is the female chair of an engineering school advisory board: https://www.unlv.edu/engineering/advisoryboard and a VC: http://www.rebelventurefund.com/team/ That said, she may be more well known for being a digital nomad and former flight attendant than anything else. Perhaps she's simply miscategorized - if so, please assign the page to me to work on and reclassify. -- Pilot375 ( talk) 18:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply

There's plenty of better source material to show notability, but because WP:EXTERNALREL I did nothing more than minor edits to clean up. eg: Award: https://issuu.com/lvwoman/docs/lvw_fall_2016- TEDx Organizer: https://www.tedxlasvegas.com/team/ etc. Pilot375 ( talk) 01:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Also, the burst of March activity is related to her Inc article about how female pages get deleted on Wikipedia https://www.inc.com/heather-wilde/garfields-wikipedia-page-just-got-vandalized-and-why-this-matters-for-your-bran.html -- Pilot375 ( talk) 01:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@Pilot375 : " Also, the burst of March activity is related to her Inc article about how female pages get deleted on Wikipedia" -- that would be pretty darned ironic. Quis separabit? 03:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.