Talk:Sarah Austin (entrepreneur)/Archive 1

Sarah Austin or Sarah Meyers?
This article currently uses "Sarah Meyers" as the primary name but I believe it should be "Sarah Austin." Sarah Austin is apparently her real name and "Meyers" was a "stage name." She now goes by Sarah Austin normally.

References:

http://www.fimoculous.com/archive/post-4571.cfm

http://pop17.com/about/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by S4xton (talk • contribs) 16:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant Links Removed
I removed the Twitter link, the calendar link and the NewTeeVee article link from the External Links section. The Twitter/Calendar links are not applicable to the entry and the NewTeeVee article is not in-depth enough to be of any interest. I also removed the PopSnap link from the infobox because it's reserved for her homepage. Species5618 (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability
This article is the most obvious autobiography of any article in this history of Wikipedia. It features completely irrelevant information ("As an agent, she was granted use of a pre-release 2011 Ford Fiesta for six months to promote it using social media" and is clearly nothing more than a vehicle for this woman's self-promotion.

Can we take a serious look at the notability of this article? It seems to fail virtually every guideline that we have set for notability, among them "significant coverage" (no significant sources address her in any detail), "sources" (no secondary sources seem to indicate her notability) and "independent of the subject" (many of the sources that do exist are from pop17, which seems to be a site run by the subject of this article). Being a producer, a lifecaster and being described by the New York Times does not merit an encyclopedia entry correct? Also this is a total gut reaction but this article has the trappings of being written by the subject -- I'm thinking of passages such as "In the tradition of Paul Krassner, she sometimes combines legitimate news coverage with personal journalism and prankster activities". Anyway, I'm throwing it out there. This Sarah Austin person may not be any more notable than the average Jane. - Kitegenic (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I added a current update which further establishes Austin's notability. Pepso2 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to say that being a lifecaster or just having a podcast isn't going to qualify someone for a Wiki page, then why not say that all media personalities have to go? Why should any of them get pages on their own? If people like iJustine and Cali Lewis can have pages uncontested, then why not Sarah? I think her and her show are just as important as any of the other podcasts on the internet. --Achernow (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not what she does that qualifies her article to be here, but whether there are enough 3rd party sources who are write about what she does. I've been able to collect and cite a few of those. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 23:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, although I specifically called Sarah Austin's notability into question, there may be a case against both of those people that you mention. My argument against Sarah Austin concerns sources because that most strongly demonstrates that her lifecasting does not have a significant reach, and that branding yourself in a medium that has almost no barrier to entry does not merit an individual Wikipedia page. We have clear notability guidelines specifically so we can make case by case judgments -- while iJustine seems to have several dozen reputable sources referencing her work, Sarah (at the time of her notability being called into question) had single-sentence mentions in the New York Times and Wired. Pepso2 has done good work to add the Techcrunch article, and the paragraph from Me 2.0. Even with these, I question whether this person is truly notable, but it no longer seems as clear cut as it once was. I created this SPA just to throw some question onto these internet personalities that have their own Wikipedia pages, especially when similarly notable people in other mediums would likely be candidates for speedy deletion. -- Kitegenic (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, one more thing -- while I don't think Sarah Austin is notable by herself and merits an individual article, merging her biography with the Lifecasting (video stream) article seems logical, as her notability makes sense in the context of lifecasting. - Kitegenic (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is the most obvious autobiography of any article in the history of Wikipedia. It features information that is not only completely irrelevant ("As an agent, she was granted use of a pre-release 2011 Ford Fiesta for six months to promote it using social media"), but hints strongly that she planted it herself - how often to we hear of a car dealership lending celebrities cars? This article is nothing more than a vehicle for this woman's self-promotion and should, at the very least, be merged with another article ("Lifecasting (Video Stream)" perhaps? - July 20th, 2010
 * the "most obvious autobiography of any article in the history of Wikipedia"? You must not have read many of our hundreds of thousands of marginal biographies then.   Perhaps you could help improve the article.  This article was previously nominated for deletion and kept, I believe.--Milowent • talkblp-r  05:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that Sarah Austin is relevant enough to merit a page then, the content at the least needs to be DRASTICALLY edited/reduced. If we are talking about Sarah Austin within the context of "lifecasting", then individual activities of hers have no merit i.e. knowing that she has been lent a car tells us nothing beyond the fact that companies use social media to sell things, which we all know. Someone with an interest in her success editing this article is pretty much the only reason a fact that germane would be included. Let me see what I can come up with regarding "improving" it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.136.45 (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was determined through a deletion discussion that she is covered in enough detail by media outlets to pass Wikipedia's notablity standards, which are the only standards that matter. Austin is known for more than her lifecasting, and there is no reason why we should limit coverage only to that. The article is a mess, and needs cleanup both in prose as well as in neutrality. A site search for "Fiesta Movement" shows five other biographical articles. If her involvement in the promotion shouldn't be included, maybe it shouldn't be on the others' as well. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 07:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There - edited the page, left pretty much ALL links to references that were ostensibly quoted verbatim in the article, and really tried to strip away the self-promotion vibe of this, while leaving the essential content intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.136.45 (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your removal included large amounts of cited content that is verifiable. Please try to establish consensus before making such drastic deletions. There are templates available if you feel something needs to be changed. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 07:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Career update
Career updated as per tag. Pepso2 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article is a mess. Yes, there are "citations", but most of the stuff here is promotional fluff. Even if numerous references to Sarah Austin in the media allows her to squeak past notability standards, there should be at least some links to critical sources as well, yes?

Basically, this article reads exactly as if it were written by Sarah Austin herself, to promote her website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.106.255 (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been cleaned up, and the only problem I see is how the lead section needs to properly summarize the article. As far as NPOV is concerned, policy states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." (Emphasis mine). Since there are no verifiable sources which are critical of Austin, adding unsourced critical info may be violating NPOV by giving undue weight to the article, not to mention other policies. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 07:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Further notability issues
I have removed certain statements from what looks like a prime vanity article anyway. Explanations below.

"Since August 2010, Austin has been a regular contributor to Forbes magazine." 6 articles in one year is not really regular contribution. And she wrote no further articles since January | this year.

"She later gained recognition for her lifecasting activities on Justin.tv." Recognition is an overstatement (and WP:PEA) in this case; we're talking about Justin.tv in the first place.

"She now produces Pop17; a series that explores elements of Internet culture and the people around it.[7] Pop17 features interviews with tech-oriented business owners and Internet personalities at tech-related events and parties.[8] It also includes commentary and news on technology and business topics." Pop17 itself is not yet that relevant as to warrant such over-detailed exposure in the lead.

The entire lengthy Early life and education section has to go. 40-odd years later, if and when she's an established diva, it might be relevant in retrospect, but not yet. And don't get me started on the Career section. Still, I left that intact. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)