Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth O'Day

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. SoWhy 15:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth O'Day

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Elizabeth O'Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

• Delete. The page appears to be a copypasta of her resume, which is not very impressive. A search on Google Scholar shows that since her last paper, nearly 5 years ago, she has published one opinion paper - not very impressive for a scientist. It also shows no patents. The last mention about her on Google News dates from 2016 - not very impressive for a public personality. In particular, there is no mention any venture funds being accrued by her company - which suggests she lacks any backers, and any products. In fact, according to manta.com, her company has 1 employee, and 23 thousand dollars revenue. No article in Wikipedia links to her page, because, again, she is not notable. I'd venture to say that her inclusion into a list of women-scientists devalues the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.21.197 (talk • contribs) 17:05, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text was copied from article talk page. I have not yet formed an opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 18:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 18:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 19:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 19:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 19:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. She founded a fashion company and a biotech company, and made a splash at her college. She's notable by our definition, Wikipedia:Notability, from indepth coverage by the Patriot Ledger,[1] and the Boston Globe (twice),[2][3]. Everything above that, such as the papers and awards, and yet another indepth bio from the Boston College alumni paper,[4] is chrome, but doesn't hurt. Note that I approved this Draft to mainspace for Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. --GRuban (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

First, as I said above, the biotech company she founded is less than a unicorn. There are no venture funds, and probably no employees. Second, re. Lizzard Fashion, that was a T-shirt printing operations, not "fashion" by any common sense definition of the word "fashion". Also, Lizzard Fashion went down so thoroughly, even the .com domain was not renewed, and is currently parked. Third, I am not sure what do you mean by "making a splash". She is definitely one of the less successful membres of her Harvard class. Fourth, you employ those old articles (2006 and 2011), as if they somehow support your claims. However, they do not address her business skills, and merely show another facet of her trying-and-failing approach. I have no metrics to judge her achievement in science popularization or her effort to get girls into science education, except for the fact that she gave up on them. 73.61.21.108 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This entirely misses the point. Notability is not about being worthy, it is not about success, it is not about business skills or other talents. The decision is not one that involves evaluating the individual's accomplishments. (Eddie the Eagle was a sub-Olympic-quality Olympic ski-jumper who never won anything, but he is unquestionably notable because the international media chose to cover the fact that he was sub-standard, and the controversy his participation engendered.) It is not a competition, where only the most notable members of a Harvard class qualify. Simply put: Has the individual received substantial non-routine coverage in sources with a reputation for reliability? If you want to argue that the coverage she received is routine local news, that is one thing, but it is an invalid argument to suggest that the person is non-notable because they are not successful, because their company failed, because their other company only has a dozen employees, or any other evaluation of their business acumen or perceived societal value. Agricolae (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, thanks, Agricolae. People don't have to be either successful or skillful to have Wikipedia articles written about them, they just have to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So getting continued media coverage, for whatever reason, generally suffices, even if that is for trying-and-failing. We have perfectly fine articles for Pets.com and Elizabeth Holmes and Arming America and, yes, Eddie the Eagle, and hundreds and hundreds of other articles about people or businesses that are generally not considered "successful". --GRuban (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. Per Wikipedia:Notability, "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." The articles you listed are not secondary sources. Elizabeth Holmes is listed in 'secondary sources', as she is the posted child for biotech unicorns, investor fraud, and the incipient government-biotech complex. O'Day is not that either. 73.61.21.80 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - without addressing her notability, devaluation has absolutely nothing to do with it. We can't make our decision based on the implications of having a page. She is either notable or not notable, and if she is notable, let the chips fall where they may. We can't decide someone is not notable just because we don't like the fact that they may be, or that they are notable for what we think are the 'wrong' reasons. Agricolae (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete A GS h-index of 14 is too low for a very high-cited field to pass WP:Prof: WP:Too soon. The BLP is over long and reads as if written by a PR team to squeeze in any possible material. If kept, it should be reduced by 75% to remove the bloat. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC).

I agree with this last. The compiler of this BLP has material that I doubt anybody but the subject or their publicist would have had access to - or cared about: undergraduate scholarships? invited speaker of a government panel in the UAE? reporting by a Lebanese television station? university honor society? a 'Selected publications' section that includes a paper on which she is the 16th author (looking at PubMed it is hard to find a paper she had published at the time this was created that was not 'selected')? I truly think our editor was looking at her curriculum vitae when they wrote this. Agricolae (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: Having just looked at the article links posted above, the subject passes the GNG; done deal. Whether she meets the prof test is irrelevant -- she meets the GNG. Whether her company succeeded or not is irrelevant -- she meets the GNG. That the cites representing the "significant coverage" in "multiple reliable sources" the GNG requires were published longer ago than the last news cycle is irrelevant -- she meets the GNG (and allow me to quote from WP:N - "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."). Whether there are more successful folks from her college graduating class, whether her business skills (or lack thereof) are highlighted, these are all irrelevant etc. (That the article itself is bloated is a content dispute, and not relevant here at AfD, and nothing stops anyone who thinks it is from trimming it as seems to them good.) Ravenswing 06:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

GNG requires that the notable person is mentioned in secondary sources. Can you provide one mention of her that is not more-or-less an interview with her (that is, a secondary source)? 73.61.21.59 (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The 4 indepth articles about her are secondary sources. They include quotes from her - and frankly, any indepth articles about a person that don't include any are going to be strange - but they are not interviews. "more-or-less" is not a standard we have. --GRuban (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The article 'Enzymes and ambition' has 5870 characters, of which 1,410 characters are direct quotes. I excluded paraphrases (another 500 or so characters), and the six occurrences of the literal phrase "O'Day said". It is an interview printed in a narrative form. Similarly, the article 'Show of force' has 7635 characters. Of those, direct quotes run up to 2250. This is slightly better edited, as has only 5 occurrences of either "O'Day said", "O'Day declared", or "O'Day explained". Only an interview lets the main actor explain and declare things five times. 73.61.21.190 (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's the first source from Elizabeth Holmes: https://money.cnn.com/2014/10/16/technology/theranos-elizabeth-holmes/ It says "She said" or "Holmes said" five times. It's not an interview either. --GRuban (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It's an interview with the subject and is not an independent source: just PR blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC).

Please don't drag me to your strawman. Whether one or 1,000 articles referenced by the article on Elizabeth Holmes is primary or secondary is besides the the point. There are certainly other articles and a few books about Holmes. That is not the case about O'Day. All you offered were: a profile of the high-schooler of the year from Quincy, a press release from her current PT job, another from her "fashion" company, and that's pretty much it.

Someone is paid for her PR; the question is: is that you? I mean, I was about to start counting what is the proportion of quotes in that article about Holmes, when I realized you wouldn't care about the result. The ball was on your field, and you were supposed to provide that number for comparison. But it looks like you are just trying to wear me off with those four press releases. 73.61.21.83 (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a standard .sig I use on VBulletin forums which runs "It's not that I don't understand what you're saying; it's that I don't agree with what you're saying." I am entirely satisfied that the articles from two significant reliable sources (one with national reach and impact) meet the GNG. They are by no means interviews or press releases, no matter how many times you claim so. You might also want to look over WP:NPA, because quite aside from that the subject doesn't have a paid PR flack just because it suits you to claim that as well, accusing other editors of that simply because they disagree with you violates it. Ravenswing 00:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I strongly encourage you to get an account. Besides the ability to nominate pages for deletion, without having other people help you, it will enable you to build up a reputation as a constructive editor, and will make your opinions be considered more by the closer of editing discussions like this one. Also unsubstantiated rumor says that on your first anniversary as an editor you get a personalized marzipan pony delivered by a flock of winged elves, who wouldn't want that? --GRuban (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete overly promotional with no actual show of notability by any existing criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Essentially promotional, and there does not seem to be enough reason for notability to make it likely that a NPOV article would be possible. The proposed reliable references are the sort of interview which is not acceptable here, because it is not truly independent. The reason why we also look at actual accomplishments--which in this instance are really trivial, is to guage the possibility that some of the coverage might be genuine. When ostensibly reliable sources write about people with no significant positive (or negative) acomplishments, the only likely reason is PR. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• weak Delete - she is clearly not notable for WP:PROF, so it comes down to whether she is notable for media coverage independent of her lack of scientific notability. Looking at the references, most are inherently promotional, passing reference, not independent, non-reliable, not an indication of notability, (plus several of them don't actually say what they are cited to support). As already pointed out, this is a classic example of constructing a glorious narrative out of scattered passing reference. There are only three that merit closer scrutiny. The Ledger story to me is 'it's a slow news day so let's report on a local person doing something curious'. That leaves us with the Boston Globe stories, and while I can appreciate the argument that these alone are sufficient to make her notable, I just don't see it that way - two stories within a few months of each other about a local undergrad. Somebody looking for an article about young women in science went to the local uni and they sent her to the subject to be interviewed - she was simply an avatar of a category. Then they went back to the well a few months later. If this had been spread over more time, perhaps, if anyone outside of Boston had picked it up, yes, but to me this falls short of the level of coverage I would equate with notability. Agricolae (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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.