Talk:Elizabeth Woodward

Notability
The notability of this person is evidently clear. She has been mentioned by reputable magazines (both online and in print) such as Forbes, Deadline, Airmail and Variety.

There are multiple sources available online which are referenced in this article.

This person was mentioned in 2021 Forbes 30 Under 30, which points evidently to notability. - ChairMex
 * I'm not sure you understand the notability criteria. Passing mentions do not contribute to notability, and I will copy over this comment from the declined draft: "Most of the sources cited do not mention her. Being on 30-under-30 type lists does not confer notability.", from (I have pinged them as the person who declined the pretty much identical draft). I will note that I have not investigated this article in depth, but I'm just sharing my knowledge here.  Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  04:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your message and for taking the time to review my article. While passing mentions may not contribute to notability, there are multiple articles written directly about this person, for example (https://airmail.news/issues/2020-2-8/elizabeth-woodward).


 * It is untrue that most of the sources do not mention her. There are 25 references in this article, of those, at least 6 are written directly about her. 15 of these sources make direct mention of her. The rest describe her work.


 * While argues that being on 30-under-30 type lists does not confer notability, I would counter that being directly mentioned in a printed and an online Forbes article as a result of being on their list does. The same would be true of her mention on the Doc NYC 40 under 40 list and the resulting article written about her. Furthermore, there are many Wikipedia pages on men who have been mentioned in the Forbes 30-under-30 without further notability. Perhaps this is an example of Gender bias on Wikipedia. - ChairMex User talk:ChairMex 00:26, 6 February 2022 (CST)
 * Hi Since this is now in mainspace, it is no longer part of the AfC review process but now must be reviewed by an NPP reviewer.  I am not an NPP reviewer, but to help with their review, can you please list 3 sources that have written at length about her.  Generally that means a couple paragraphs that are not interviews as those are not independent.  See WP:THREE for additional guidance.  I cannot access the Air Mail article in full but what I can see does have one paragraph that is independent of what she says.  Also, my comment about 30-under-30 comes from discussions I have seen at WP:AFD.  More often than not, I have seen the community state such lists do not confer nobility.  As far as other articles, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  The notability criteria overtime has largely become more strict so what may have been acceptable years ago is not acceptable today and things do still get by that really should not.  S0091 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * another thought, especially given one of your concerns is gender bias, is to post a note at WikiProject Women in Red to solicit their assistance. It is one the most active and successful projects on Wikipedia, which has a broad editor membership with many seasoned editors some of which are AfC and/or NPP reviewers.  Also, you do not need to officially join to participate so something to keep in mind as you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. S0091 (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)