Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Robbins

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.

Sarah Robbins

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Sarah Robbins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not notable. Article almost falls over itself attempting to assert notability but, no, no sign she's more notable than the average professor (

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Sanchez. --kingboyk 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentBecause, I edit this article extensively I am recusing myself from voting. In response to comment. I want the article to meet notability requirements so edit it to show what requirements are met. Her nomination for awards and and coverage in national media make her more than average professor. She is roughly as well known as danah boyd. How can I or others improve the article.Typewriter 01:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment also just added reference to ibiblio speaker series she was asked to lecture in. Other lecturers in the series include

Delete, she is just a college professor with a blog. There are too many other similar people for her to get an article. Black Harry 02:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Intellagirl is a cutting edge blogger who combines Real Life with Second Life. Her work and writing is moving educators past Web 2.0 into Web 3.0, in ways that Wikipedia opened up 2.0. To strengthen the article, it needs more images, an indepth teaching philosophy, and a closer look at the ways that she "breaks out of Real World learning". Alys Obviate 3:00 UTC — Alys Obviate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Not a registered user, forged signature; edit actually made by User:154.20.20.89

Keep, Intellagirl is absolutely a pioneer in the field of distance education, where linear, text-based courses remain the norm. Sarah Robbins and the merest handful of others pushed back the boundaries of technology in education to investigate early on what might be done in Second Life and, by extension, in similar environments. Her blog shares her research activities with the education community. Ozma.malibu 03:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC) — Ozma.malibu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User blocked. --kingboyk 12:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This article is way too long. Needs editing to the essential bits. See a sampling of other Second Life and M.U.V.E. notables who may or may not have a page:

• Howard_Rheingold
• Henry_Jenkins
• Laurence_F._Johnson (I started this one...)
• Joe_Sanchez
• Futurist Jerry Paffendorf (no page)
• Philip_Rosedale
• Lawyer Marc Bragg (no page)
• GlobalKids Barry Joseph (no page)
• Mitch_Kapor
• Anshe_Chung
• Reporter Mark Wallace (no page)
• Reporter Hamlet Au (no page)
• SL CTO Cory Ondrejka (No page)
• John_D._Bransford
• Harvard MUVE Prof Chris Dede (no page)
• Lawrence_Lessig
• John_Seely_Brown
• Indiana MUVE Prof Sasha Barab (no page)

jk 04:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because other similar articles exists is not a reason to keep this article. TJ Spyke 07:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Please remember that

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is part of an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors. --Cyrus Andiron 12:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. She is a graduate student and a keen blogger. Some of the linked articles do not mention her. I don't see any notability here. Stammer 10:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is incorrect all links mention or quote Robbins. I double checked this morning.

• Delete I agree with
  WikiProject Television) 13:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Second Life is definitely being hyped quite a bit right now. Popularity does not necessarily imply invalid, though.
• Keep Plenty of references make it seem valid and potentially informative and useful for someone in those circles. --
  mi 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete - She does seem to have gotten some media attention, but most of the references qualify as trivial mentions. There's one full fledged article, from The Star Press, a local online news source. Falls a little bit short of
  WP:N, in my opinion. Even so, I just wanted to say that notability is permanent. If reliable sources write about her, then she meets WP:N, if they don't she doesn't. Whether or not it's a result of a temporary bump in the popularity of Second Life is irrelevant.Chunky Rice 17:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as lacking sufficient sourcing to establish notability. When and if that changes she can have an article, but not now.
  Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Chunky Rice. The "quotes" are hardly substantial bits of any of the articles cited. If you look at Lawrence Lessig, he has entire columns dedicated to his field, in addition to humongous interviews (length and sheer number) from people who want to know more about his views on the free software movement. Sarah Robbins, on the other hand, has not even been approached by a non-local paper to conduct an interview on whatever groundbreaking ideas she might have. - Pandacomics 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep News coverage satisfies
  WP:BIO. --Infrangible 02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. "Best known for blogging, speaking and educating in Second Life" says it all, really. BTLizard 10:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with caveats and Comment on Pandacomics's assertion above: Lawrence Lessing is a superstar in the world of academia. Comparing Robbins to Lessing in order to establish that she is not more notable than an average professor would be like saying Ben Folds Five should be deleted because they don't have the press coverage of The Beatles. Phone up ten random names from a list of college instructors and see if anywhere near half of them have had major news outlets covering either their research or teaching. The Interest in her work is notable (even if being nominated for a graduate school prize is not). My weak support for keeping comes from the article not being a particularly well-written or useful article. I don't know anything more about Robbins's research after reading it as before; discussion of the contents of her two papers would be more useful than knowing she still has a dissertation to write. --Myke Cuthbert 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC) oh, and I also find the template to be an attempt to skew discussion or discount people's views. I see nothing different than a typical AfD here. -- MSC [reply]

But see, Lessig's superstardom is what makes him notable, in accordance with

WP:N. - Pandacomics 19:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• I am switching to Neutral. The fact that the article was poorly written, plus some subliminal stereotypes, may have induced me to discount the sources' relevance. Stammer 14:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the vote

Because we are NOT voting, I started this new section to conduct a reasoned discussion as opposed to rough binary responses. I have shredded this article - thrown cold water on the "promotional" aspects and distilled it to the most useful (and verified) portions.

The information here is useful to me personally as I watch this EdTech research community mature. Robbins is a notable personality in the study of this new media. Granted, this is a case of boosterism bordering on a vanity piece - but the timbre of debate is fueled by community bias. If Robbins were comparably notable in Wikimedia circles, there would be no debate. Period.

Please leave this article be - it is useful. I have given enough to this community to assert this. See my winning Wikispecies logo entry and 2 "photos of the day" [1] [2]). jk 19:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you contributed to the community doesn't make her any more notable. - Pandacomics 19:45, 29 April 2007 (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.