My comments are by no means meant to criticize the criteria that wikipedia are using, but meant to address the fact that we need to work a little harder at proving that the leaders of our community are worth including. I think they are, the wikipedian who put the question mark on stephen’s bio is not at fault…

we are.

People who satisfy at least one of the items below generally merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn’t fall into one of these categories doesn’t mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.

And then farther down there is an example of people who are more well known than the average college professor as being includable.

So I think the criteria are met, but the author of the article might need to make the notation that the Wikipedia directions indicate for the “non-notable” but “worthy of inclusion.”

I expect it is reasonable to have criteria by which people would be considered “notable,” eh?

Cheers–
–Elizabeth