Is it, though? What is the single-incident? The story breaking? In which case, we end up with news coverage being the story rather than covering the story, and everything goes haywire (we only have primary sources, for a start, which suggests it's not notable). If she's notable, it's for a series of crimes and a spell as COO of WMF, not for a single incident, thus she should get her own article, rather than there being an article on the story. Viewed in that light, I'd say she probably isn't notable. Consider the "Will anyone care in X amount of time?" approach - I'd say the answer is "no" for quite small values of X (6 months, or so).

Thomas Dalton wrote: I'd say she's worth two or three lines on the Wikimedia Foundation article at most. A bio? No chance. Not unless she turn out to be Jimbo's long-lost sister and goes on to cure cancer. Other than the fact she has a criminal record she's not notable - the notability (if any) is in what the Foundation did (or failed to do), and the media commentary is all on that. The media are not even interested in her, but in WMF, there's little chance of her autobiography becoming a mini-series. However, having said all of that, do we really need the publicity and the crappy calls of 'censorship' that a DRV entails. Let the bio be created, and then merge it with WMF in a month or two. Doc

On 21/12/2007, Nathan Awrich <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: The AP reporter was contacting donors and fishing for quotes; after they all told him to bugger off, I expect he went wherever he could find the quote he was looking for. Why report the news when you can go out of your way to make it? - d.

WP:BLP1E There is no problem with covering the situation in appropriate places, but normal consensus about BLP's is that we don't have articles about people who have had some new coverage only due to a single negative event. It may seem like Wikipedia is the center of the universe, but it actually isn't. :) Random sample found by searching in google for "coo scandal": http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/7813032 A brief search of Wikipedia shows that in this case of a fraud alleged by the SEC to have involved $8.2 million profit to the CFO and COO of this company, we have nothing on either person, nor on the company, nor on the scandal. http://www.cnet.com/8301-13555_1-9805001-34.html This story talks about the same event as a $200 million fraud. The CEO, about whom we do not have an article, is charged. I am not arguing that we should or should not have an article on this other case (but please let's not have my use of this example trigger an idiotic war about it!). I am just arguing that there is absolutely no way in hell we would have an article in the case of Carolyn Doran, were it not for Wikipedia navel-gazing. There was no fraud (that we know of), nothing bad happened to us (that we know of), it is just an embarassment and for this poor woman, her rather sad life story is now in the Associated Press. But this whole thing is still amply covered by BLP1E and non-Wikipedia precedent and tradition. Nathan Awrich wrote:

On 21/12/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: The single "notable" event is this massive fuss. It stems from a series of independent events, none of which are independently notable - we wouldn't write an article about someone who did one or another or even all of her various past misdemeanours. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 21/12/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Just out of curioaity, what are the multiple significant events?

On 23/12/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: I thought you might be thinking along those lines. I don't think we'd normally consider hit-and-runs, shootings and the like as meriting an article. There are a lot of convicted felons around. The story here seems to me to pertain at most to the Foundation's lapses of governance, so a biographical article wouldn't normally be merited.

On 24/12/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yes, it's the only thing that might force us to catalog the appalling events of this person's life in an encyclopedia. We're not Facebook. Being in Wikipedia can *hurt*, it can *kill*. We need to be sure that we really need to interfere with somebody's life that much. This applies to *every single living person* documented by Wikipedia, not just this former employee. It's why we have a "Biographies of living persons" (BLP) policy. We owe a duty to humanity, and specifically to our subjecs, not to make things worse. We're here to nmake things BETTER. Did you forget that? Merry Christmas!

From: Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> Humanity _first_, our subjects _second_, IMO. We're not in the business of publishing Haigographies. I see BLP as a lawsuit-avoidance mechanism, not some grand statement of fundamental ideals like NPOV or Verifiability are. "Making things better" is a subjective goal, please don't assume that people who disagree with your particular interpretation of what would accomplish it aren't actually striving to make things better in their own way. Assume good faith.

On 25/12/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: It's not a strawman. We would never have an article on someone who did that, normally. We're an *encyclopedia*; I myself spent hours some time ago digging through categories of people listed as criminals to try to get rid of the ones who were there as some kind of proxy for a court record or a sex offender registry. I never saw a single complaint about it in the general case, just bickering over individual instances being 'notable' or not. "Commiting a serious crime" - short of something famously scandalous, or mass murder, or something that caused changes in jurisprudence - is not and has never been accepted by the community as a reasonable basis for inclusion of a biography. I don't see why it should change just because we know of them. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 25/12/2007, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: Historically sport and crime have probably been the easiest ways to get into wikipedia. In terms of the energy you would need to expend crime is almost certainly the simplest way to get into wikipedia. -- geni

Matthew Brown wrote: What about John Mark Karr falsely confessing to murdering JonBenét Ramsey? Sure he probably didn't do it with the specific reason of getting into wikipedia, but he did do it for the fame. It won't be long before people start doing things to get into wikipedia. But that's just my .02c ILovePlankton

Tony Sidaway wrote: Would that be WP:BEANS or the regular kind? ILovePlankton

On 25/12/2007, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote: Just being COO of WMF isn't enough to even be considered for a Wikipedia article. Just being involved in a hit and run (etc) isn't enough to even be considered for a Wikipedia article. The two together, however, are clearly enough that people are considering it. That means we can't reduce everything to a single event, since no single event gives the correct conclusion.

Jimmy Wales wrote: it is just an embarassment and for I could not agree more. Indeed all mention of this incident can probably be expunged from wikipedia in about twelve months time. However, and this is the catch 22, if our concern is that a "poor woman with a sad life story" be left alone then trying to prevent a bio may be completely counterproductive. As mush as I hate it, if someone in the community forces the issue (and I hope they don't), our only means for preventing such bio (and enforcing BLP1E, is either to have a wiki-drama and a high profile DRV or Jimmy publicly intervening. The is the real danger that either scenario will end up in another press run for trash like the Register. Doc

On 22/12/2007, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote: The above was clearly written without reference to the actual observed behaviour, i.e. every media fart and puff involving Wikipedia getting noted in Wikipedia. - d.

On Dec 22, 2007 6:48 PM, Ben Yates <ben.louis.yates(a)gmail.com> wrote: There is Wikinews coverage, which is more appropriate. Coverage in Wikipedia may be warranted, but the story is all about the Foundation, and any coverage belongs in the article on the Foundation. -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

While I would be the first to argue that one can't have a page on every petty criminal in the world, it is going to be very odd if a page on this woman is forbidden. When the page happens, and it will happen, it might be best if it is actually written by Jimbo. No-one can accuse anyone of cover ups then. Giacomo On Dec 22, 2007 10:25 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Carolyn_Doran

Jimmy Wales wrote: Whilst we rightly avoid a bio, can I strongly suggest that a sentence or two be inserted into [[Wikimedia Foundation]]. That it simply states:"That same month, Carolyn Doran left as COO [1]" - and is locked from further edits /does/ look like censorship (I know it's not) and may attract negative PR. I'd suggest something simple like: "..some months after her departure, it emerged that Doran had convictions for DUI prior to her hiring [refs]. The Foundation was criticised in the media for failing to perform adequate background checks.[refs]" (not sure accurate that is) Doc

There needs to be some mention, somewhere. SALTing the page isn't a positive message either. People are going to hear the story from another news source, and then will come to Wikipedia to read more, and when they search for Carolyn Doran, and get "*This page has been protected to prevent creation"*, they will have their own thoughts of Wikipedia and the WMF, which aren't going to be positive. On Dec 22, 2007 11:38 AM, G MZ <solebaciato(a)googlemail.com> wrote: -- Rjd0060 rjd0060.wiki(a)gmail.com

Yes, a soft redirect to the WMF article may be best, as long as there is mention of this in there. On Dec 22, 2007 2:01 PM, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: -- Rjd0060 rjd0060.wiki(a)gmail.com

I agree with the redirect notion. --sent from sidekick

Rjd0060 - wrote: Looks like just a misunderstanding from an admin routinely deleting orphaned talk pages. I've asked him to restore it. It looks like we are reaching a consensus of no bio, but a redirect to WMF. The talk page was a good place to hammer out the details. Doc

G MZ wrote: If standing on the principle of NPOV is a mistake, I plead guilty and await my sentence. I don't have such a dim view of the press as you do, perhaps. --Jimbo