Talk:Rebecca Hains

Notability
I believe this subject meets the notability guidelines for academics (here), as follows:


 * "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources," and


 * "7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.[...] Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.

The subject has been notably influential in the world of ideas in this field (in which I am a graduate student) and her influence is seen in frequent quotes in conventional media as an academic -- not local media, but major national and international outlets. GMC2020 (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * GMC2020, the problem here, as with so many possible COI editors who write up themselves or their professors, is that your draft is a resume, not a biographical article. And it rarely fails, for a subject who's been in the press, that there's a "featured in the media" section--when, of course, a. that's just another resume-style section (for the T&P committee) and b. those sources should have been used to verify actual content in the article. I think this is the second or the third one today; please forgive my impatience, but it's striking how many academically trained people come here and put up their drafts without either reading the guidelines or looking at good examples of people who meet WP:NPROF. One more thing: scholars usually reach notability by way of their academic work, which is item 1 on the list, all the way at the top--and scholarly reviews of scholarly books can do that. I don't know if there are such reviews, but I do note that the first monograph was published by Peter Lang, which makes me think that this was a (paid-for) publication of a dissertation; the second seems to be self-publishing venue. So you will have to to attempt to reach notability standards by way of item 7, as you indicated--but a resume-style list of media appearances will not do that for you. So when  said, "Wikipedia articles are supposed to be summaries of what reliable secondary sources say about a particular subject", they were absolutely right, and your job, if you want this to go into article space, is to rewrite it. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this old comment. Peter Lang (publisher) and Sourcebooks are major publishers that commission works and pay their authors. See this and this. Peter Lang describes the Princess Cultures and Growing Up with Girl Power books as part of their Mediated Youth series of "cutting-edge new research on the cultures, artifacts, and media of children...." I am adding some reviews of the books. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Early life section missing.
We know Rebecca was raised Jewish and is presently self identified as an atheist, and where she was born, and to whom. Why no early life section though? It'd make it easier for all the info to be centralised on here than across all her blogs and articles. 124.190.192.47 (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No, we do not know any of those things, and, indeed, what we can see from a Google search indicates that at least some of your assertions are wrong. Do you have WP:Reliable sources to cite for any information about her early life? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)