Talk:Amanda Askell

Notability

@Qoiuoiuoiu: How does this person meet the WP:notability guidelines? Based on its current state, I would nominate it for deletion. —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the current sourcing is inadequate. I see some paywalled interviews in search results. This could be a draft while notability is discussed. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Well... I'm not particularly well versed in these subjects, but an acquaintance was quite shocked that she didn't have a Wikipedia page, so I decided to tidy up the draft and publish it. From what I've been told, she's an extremely prominent AI researcher and philosopher; her being on a recent TIME list confirms this.

I agree that we could return it to a draft state while it's revised/expanded, but I think that she's worthy of having an article. Qoiuoiuoiu (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

She's the main author of https://www.anthropic.com/constitution, essentially its guiding personality document. I think playing such a pivotal role in the development of one of the biggest AIs should count towards notability. Qoiuoiuoiu (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

If there was a well-cited career section detailing her work, notability would likely be achieved. You just have to find good sources. Thriley (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Qoiuoiuoiu: Every subject with a page on Wikipedia must have WP:notability. The burden of proof falls on the editors who want to keep the page. Does the person meet basic criteria for notability of people? Are they notable for their academic achievements? I did a cursory search on Google and Google Scholar, and I did not find anything.

1. Time 100 AI list: I think editors would question whether a time list into a niche topic (not the main TIME 100) really confers notability.
2. Author of Claude (language model) constitution: why is this notable? If it were notable, there should be secondary reliable sources discussing it.

—🌊PacificDepths (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

There are actually a significant number of sources; I believe it's been mentioned earlier that some are paywalled. She's been interviewed by Business Insider (paywalled), FastCompany (cited in the article), the NYT, the 80000 hours podcast, and more.

I think that the esoteric nature of her research makes it difficult for popular sources to report on her work, but they've still interviewed her (just, mostly in laymen's terms). However, I'm not well versed in AI alignment, so I can't really tell you how academically notable she is, nor am I a great candidate for expanding this article on the more technical aspects of her research. Qoiuoiuoiu (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Sources for notability need to demonstrate significant coverage of the subject. I checked the NYT podcast. Amanda Askell is interviewed on around 28:14, but the topic appears to be about the Claude Constitution, not about Askell as a person. If I were to use this as a source, I could not extract a lot of information about Askell. You might also look at the essay on interviews as a source of notability. —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok. What do you propose is done about the article, then? I'd prefer to move it back to draftspace rather than delete it. I think it's plausible Askell becomes notable in the near future, in any case. Qoiuoiuoiu (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

It appears there is consensus to move this out of mainspace, so you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Draftify. Note that drafts which have been inactive for at least six months may be deleted. —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Chiming in late: I tend to disagree with this assessment: She was a co-author of a major AI Paper (the GPT3 paper), maybe enough for NPROF? She appeared on some relatively big podcasts: 80.000 Hours, Hard Fork, Rationally Speaking. She was recognised as one of the 100 most important persons by Time magazine. While I agree that this might, at this time, be an edge case, I think the article would possibly survive AfD and should thus not be draftified WatkynBassett (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with @WatkynBassett: Askell is a senior figure at Anthropic, and her work on Claude's “constitution” has received considerable coverage. I just added a RS and tried to improve the article a bit. Sir Paul (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Sir Paul, WatkynBassett, and Qoiuoiuoiu: Can you please replace the cites to Askell's website and CV? Generally, citing information to a personal website isn't acceptable on Wikipedia, particularly when notability is in question. Thriley (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, I’ll take a look. Sir Paul (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Thriley I replaced all references to Askell's personal website and CV with appropriate citations. Sir Paul (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Looks great. Just one citation needed for the details of her PhD thesis. Thriley (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Done—thanks! Sir Paul (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Here's an article that mention's her work that may help build the case for notability: . This and a few other ones like it, when woven into the article, should hopefully prevent deletion. Thriley (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Added, thank you! Sir Paul (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• I appreciate the work that editors have put into this article; however, I am still unconvinced. I have nominated this article for deletion. You can read WP:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions to make the best case for keeping the article. —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)