Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Clover

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 redirect‎ to Wikimedian of the Year. Consensus here is that WOTY is not itself sufficient to confer notability and other potential sources to sustain an article do not exist. Congratulations in any case, Clovermoss, for the award. (I should also note that I have interacted with Clovermoss off-wiki before, but she did not ask me to participate in any capacity, and as such I do not believe I have a COI.) ^Complex/_Rational 18:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Clover

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

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

While I'm honoured that someone was enthusiastic enough to create an article about me, I think it might be a bit premature. I doubt I meet WP:BASIC at this point in time. There was a brief shared interview that was present in an episode of BBC Tech Life. It starts at 20:20. Then there's the newspaper cited in the article. While this piece quotes me, it is not an interview, and appears to have been inspired by this. That's the extent of any secondary sourcing available. I think a redirect makes the most sense for now but I will be alright if consensus comes to a different decision. I mostly just think that a discussion about notability should be had here and I figured that by starting it myself no one would have to worry about offending me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. Since you won't be offended, in the absence of other coverage I think that WP:BLP1E applies here. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE also applies since there is no strong case for keeping a standalone article. (I get that one could make a case for WP:ANYBIO criterion 1, but I think that the subject's request for redirection supersedes that in the absence of any other evidence of notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really requesting deletion per se. Like if people genuinely think ANYBIO applies I don't think the fact that I was the one to start the AfD should be noteworthy, even if I understand why BLPREQUESTDELETE exists. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per Clovermoss and Dclemens1971. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep I feel like the global award from the Wikimedia movement meets WP:ANYBIO - although granted other RS are scant Lajmmoore (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Congratulations Clovermoss!! However Wikimedian of the Year is obviously not well-known or significant outside of our own community so Anybio is not met. Reywas92^Talk 19:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. While I understand that some might not see Wikimedian of the Year as a particularly significant award... this is Wikipedia. We're allowed to think of ourselves as significant and important, and even if the coverage here is borderline, since most people who have won the award seem to pass GNG, it's reasonable to have articles on all of them as a set. (Noting that I do know Hannah personally, but she did not ask me to comment here, nor do I think that I have a COI in wanting her to have an article -- I'd make the same argument no matter who won the award.) Elli (talk | contribs) 20:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO Md Joni Hossain (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This strikes me as being pretty self-evident here. ONEEVENT. Carrite (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:NBIO. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (restoring the original redirect to Wikimedian of the Year) per nom: notability is not established by coverage in independent sources and award is insufficiently notable to bypass the requirement for independent coverage. Also as others have said, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can y'all please stop citing that one? She isn't actually requesting deletion here and she clarified as such above. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect This is a WP:BLP1E. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:BLP1E, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Even if Wikimedian of the Year is significant enough to qualify for ANYBIO - and I would suggest were we not all Wikipedians we'd all be skeptical that a person of the year from a 180 million USD nonprofit is a well-known/signficant honor or even notable enough to have a list page just showing how we all have a COI and all the problems that come with it when editing abotu Wikipedia - that would just indicate a likely notability. Clovermoss has demonstrated how the sourcing is not sufficient to meet notability standards in actuality; in other words (even if this award is enough for ANYBIO) it might be likely but it still didn't happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If we make this a redirect, she will be the only person listed on Wikimedian of the Year without an article. I suggest we look for further coverage and expand the article. Even if it is connected with Wikipedia, this is an important award and all winners deserve biographies.--Ipigott (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid rationale in deletion discussions. A subject must be independently notable and we do not have a notability criteria that states that anybody who has won the award has assumed notability. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh:: Thanks for your useful reaction. I suggested keep as a basis for trying to expand the article. If this is not possible, then I agree we should go back to redirect but I still think we should see how things evolve over the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Hey no worries, I'm definitely not trying to convince you to change your vote, and I respect your intentions. I just like to mention it so that an argument can possibly be refactored to better express one's point. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few other articles that are fairly weak on sourcing, and I think people just made them because they appreciate other Wikipedians, not because they really passed GNG with them. While for the most part recipients have gotten coverage in one way or another that justifies an article, this award alone is very simply not well known enough for standard GNG expections of significant coverage to be thrown out. Reywas92^Talk 15:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I disagree that WP:ANYBIO is met with this award. I do not believe there's currently enough independent WP:SIGCOV of the individual to justify a standalone article. Frankly, a number of the other articles for past winners should also be redirected, but nobody wants to be the one to do. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per everyone above. Lack of notability, blp1e, blprequestdelete, and all the rest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, saw this last night and have been mulling it over. You know, Wikipedia is not just another website, it is the world's foremost encyclopedia, the "go to" place for information on and for search engines such as Google, and is a household name simply because almost every household on the planet either uses it or gains from it, a large percentage of them on a daily basis. This ain't beanbag, as Yogi Berra probably said while playing beanbag. Wikipedia has settled into its niche as a major 21st century communication and knowledge tool. There has never been a civilizational collab project such as this except in wartime. Its volunteer editors are not navel-gazing when judging its self-referential articles, but are accurately encyclopedically reporting on an unprecedented and ever-growing cultural tool and educationally-based phenomena. Articles for its Wikipedians and Wikimedians of the Year fit that rational. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No barnstar, internal award or other Wikipedia badge make a person automatically notable. Basically WP:NPEOPLE, section "Articles on Wikipedians" says that essentially articles about these people should pass GNG, and this article simply doesn't. WP:ANYBIO requires a significant and famous award - ask random people on the street what awards Wikipedia gives. Ehhh... ehhh... *crickets*. It's not like Wikipedian of the Year is like being inducted in the NFL Hall of Fame, getting an Oscar or a Fields Medal, or even close to that.

Also, when the subject themselves do not want an article or doubt about their notability, I'd strongly consider just not creating the article in the first place.

Regardless of all the above, congrats on the award, and keep doing the great work. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect . I don't think the award meets the standards of WP:ANYBIO. Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO Tuhin (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until better sourcing is found, per BLP1E and Clovermoss's comments above. --130.111.220.19 (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. WP:ANYBIO is additional criteria that is preceded by People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. So even presuming that Wikimedian of the Year qualifies as a well-known and significant award or honor, that doesn't mean there must be a stand-alone article on this person. In this case, when there is an absence of significant coverage, the redirect to and listing in Wikimedian of the Year suffices for encyclopedic purposes. (Separately, congratulations to Clovermoss!) Schazjmd (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO at this time. Redirect as a WP:ATD with no prejudice against recreation should additional sourcing emerge. Let'srun (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all the above arguments. While I am am sure Clovermoss is deserving of the honor as a great Wikipedian, I don't think Wikimedian of the Year meets ANYBIO as it is given purely at the whim of Jimbo Wales, as opposed to vetting by the community and/or the foundation, and it recieves very scant media coverage. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Step Sideways: It's a bit more complicated than that. While Jimmy Wales is indeed the person who has the final say, I was one of five shortlisted candidates. The process before that involves some degree of vetting from the foundation and they seek input from others on who to consider (apparently I was a very popular choice and a name they heard often). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it matter who gives out the award? jp×g 🗯️ 09:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's what i keep telling people, but apparently being the designated MVP in high school mock trial "isn't as good as a Rhodes Scholarship" or whatever. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won my school's kindness award when I was in grade 2. Surely that counts for something! 😂 Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO. As long as the person is given attention by multiple sources, there's no need to delete it. Your contributions have drawn attention to the public. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahri Boy: I don't really have multiple sources though, that's the whole point of me starting this AfD. I think it's premature when the only SIGCOV is a single newspaper article (see my nomination statement). I would've felt like a hypocrite if I hadn't started this, I don't think I deserve special treatment. It's possible that more sources will exist someday and then I'd change my mind. But the way things stand now, I think the redirect should probably be reinstated. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this AfD seems to be attracting widespread interest, I think it seems only right to notify people that a similar article has also been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taufik Rosman. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year, if the article is not improved. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Although this is not a BLPREQUESTDELETE, I would not consider WotY a "well-known and significant award" for ANYBIO, and probably also a NOPAGE fail, seeing as the list presently has more information than the article and I don't see much room for expansion beyond WotY. Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all of the arguments above, mostly Clovermoss, explicitly not per the arguments where people have come here entirely to blow off their big bazoo in re whether Jimbo is based or cringe, comma. jp×g 🗯️ 09:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this is aimed at me, but I did no such thing. If anything here is "cringe" it is your continued insistence on making painfully unfunny personal attacks disguised as hilarious jokes. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The passive-aggressive comment was meant to vaguely indicate slight displeasure with more than one comment, in approximately equal amount for each.

I did not intend to convey active and severe disapproval, so I did not explicitly name the commenters. My intention was to make them feel mild disapproval for about five seconds and then move on with their day, not to publicly castigate them. jp×g 🗯️ 05:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Unless our Clovermoss can come up with RS for that school kindness award, this is BLP1E. Fails ANYBIO. There are a trillion reasons why being a wikipedian and having a BLP1E article about oneself are a bad combination. My redirect assertion in this case in no way spoils my delight in seeing this award go to a hard-working North American Wikipedian this year. BusterD (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year: per almost everybody above. I don't think there is enough sources to make it beyond a stub unless there is RS coverage of the kindness award. Sohom (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't. I brought it up to add a bit of humour to the situation. No one outside my school cared that I won the kindness award and I'm probably the only person who even remembers that I did. To those not familiar with Ontario's education system, I was 7 years old in grade 2. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/weak delete. Congratulations on the award, but I think some other things are needed for an article. Good luck! Nadzik (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I can't find anything else but coverage of the award, so this appears to be a clear case of WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. This is a clear case of WP:BIO1E; very little sourcing exists about this human outside of the context of her winning an award. And, as WP:PAGEDECIDE notes, there are times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. With respect to WP:ANYBIO, I take both the view that Clover is presently better covered in the broader article that provides more context regarding that award than her two-sentence biographical entry would (i.e. that PAGEDECIDE would advise against an article if she were notable), and also the view that the Wikimedian of the Year award does not meet the threshold of being a well-known and significant award or honor that would automatically warrant inclusion (i.e. that she is not presently notable). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dclemens1971. Balph Eubank (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2024 (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.