Talk:Alanah Pearce

"developer"
Referring to her simply as a "developer" is too ambiguous. Do sources specify what exactly it is she does? i.e. writer, designer, programmer? TarkusAB talk / contrib 08:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes! It specified writer in the second sentence but I moved it into the first. Thanks for that. Aranya (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Alanah Pearce
Hi  It is a not standard to use WP:SPS sources to validate a birthday or any kind of bio information on BLP articles. It has not been checked by any peer review or under editorial control, or fact checked. You might think it is cool, you may be fan or something, but it is simply not done to use non-standard sources to verify a BLP article, particularly since it is a new article. There is a script on Wikipedia that shows these types of references up, in BLP, and when it comes up at Afd or coin I removed. That is the consensus. Please do not add in it back in. If you want, I can ask for page protection or take to ANI. Find a better a source. Do not rely on social media to support an BLP article. It is reduces the quality and much much harder to verify it later.  scope_creep Talk  06:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure who you’re trying to ping, but I assume you’re referring to me. As per my edit summaries, please read WP:DOB: "A verified social media account of an adult article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" falls under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth." This is official BLP policy per consensus. It is the standard (albeit a newer one). – Rhain  ☔ 07:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Rhain. The source for the birthday is acceptable. Steelkamp (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your right it is consensus, agreed June 2021, which I didn't know about, but it is not acceptable. These sources, espoused by used by this generation, who tend to spill their guts on social media, will change in 10-20-30 years up the road, when the worm turns. They will invariably change, as humanity all ways changes as they get older and start to say things that conflict with things they said when they were younger. So it fundamentally doesn't work and is the reason in past centuries, they always verified it. Its not a new problem. It also conflicts with WP:SPS policy, at a fundamental level. So will cause problems for maintenance and verifiability up the line, and by using these sources it makes the articles shallower, more fragile and of a lower quality than similar article that uses proper verified sources. So good on you for reducing the quality of Wikipedia!!  scope_creep Talk  12:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you care about it that strongly, take your holier-than-thou attitude to WT:BLP and start a new discussion there; over here, you might as well be yelling snarky comments into the void. – Rhain  ☔ 14:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to annoy you, I'm trying to get to you to understand how weak these sources are and how your position is. It breaks WP:SPS. They are not fact checked. They are self-published. What that means is all thats all it needs the individual to say something in later life, or some event to occur, that casts doubt on what they said when they were younger, then the whole ediface collapses. It is that simple. They are extraordinarily weak and will cause problems in the long term. As an approach it is very short-termist, perhaps to satisfy a need for completeness, when most other editors see accuracy as more important and would wait to get a particular fact, that sometimes takes years. We are not in it for the short term.    scope_creep Talk  14:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't care. Save these arguments for a proper discussion, because over here you're just yelling cynicism for nobody to read. Someone tweeting their own birthday or birthplace is just as reliable (if not more so) than, say, The New York Times writing about it, and it has the added benefit of avoiding privacy concerns. I just think the word "Twitter" is scary to some editors. – Rhain  ☔ 23:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That sums it up, you don't care, so your not willing do the work to determine if it is benefit to Wikipedia or not. I think your a bit confused. The New York Times, double checks every fact it receives. And it has nothing to do with Twitter. It could be somebody writing on a rock on the moon, or whispering it to you, chinese like, in the ear. The fact is, it is not fact checked is the core of it. It is simply one person making a statement about themselves. So it is entirely subjective, not objective. scope_creep Talk  15:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done the work, and determined that it does benefit Wikipedia. I just don't care about this discussion in particular. If Alanah Pearce told The New York Times that she was born on 24 August 1993, the only fact-checking they would do is with Pearce herself; if you think they're going to track down her birth certificate to prove that information, then I'm afraid you're overestimating their fact-checkers. I'm not sure how Moon rocks or Chinese whispers are relevant to this. At the end of the day, I think the new policy at WP:DOB is incredibly useful and aligns with existing WP policy, and I fully support the editors responsible for it. That's all. – Rhain  ☔ 23:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Alanah is not relevant enough to entertainment to have a page.
I suggest deletion. The references are her own Twitter and tabloid news. This whole page reads like a resume or social media rant; She was in the middle of online drama that wasn’t historically important. Lots of people have done the same work she has and also received rape threats. Creatively we have no idea what she does. Wikipedia is not meant to be a hub for social media personalities to game their way into. 47.225.73.186 (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * She is a game writer and journalist, not just a "social media personality", and nobody has "gamed their way into" anything. This article cites many independent, reliable sources; none are "tabloid news". "Lots of people have done the same work she has and also received rape threats"—then, if they are also covered by reliable sources, they can receive articles too, when someone takes the time to write them; but "what about x" is not a sufficient reason to delete something. – Rhain  ☔ 13:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Even worse are those who nominate a page for deletion, declaring it needs to be cleaned up rather than...putting in the work to clean up the page. I've had that happen before, where people have nominated a page for deletion, it is kept, and those users never go back to help improve the page after that. Historyday01 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)