Talk:Tamika Butler

Is the subject notable?
On 2 April 2018, tagged this article as possibly not meeting the notability guidelines. I would like to thank Bbarmadillo for starting this conversation. Tamika Butler is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia because she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.


 * On 6 September 2016, Josh Cohen at Next City published an article titled "Tamika Butler Is on an Inclusive Mobility Mission in L.A." Butler is the subject of this article and it has significant coverage of her. The Next City website is published by Next City, with an editorial team. Butler has no known associations with the publisher or editing staff.


 * On 15 June 2017, Sahra Sulaiman at Streets Blog Los Angeles published an article titled "Tamika Butler to Step Down as Head of LACBC; Leaves Behind Strong Legacy of Inclusion in Transportation." Butler is the subject of this article and it has significant coverage of her. Streets Blog Los Angeles is published by the Southern California Streets Initiative and OpenPlans, with an editorial team. Butler has no known associations with the publisher or editing staff.


 * On 2 August 2017, Bianca Barragan at Curbed Los Angeles published an interview titled "Biking in Los Angeles: A Q&A with the former head of LACBC." Butler is the subject of this interview and it has significant coverage of her. Curbed Los Angeles is published by Vox Media, with an editorial team. Butler has no known associations with the publisher or editing staff.

Each of these sources appears to be intellectually independent of each other, and each of the sources is included in the references section of the article, so the notability should be clear to other editors.

I hope that this information is sufficient for any other editor to feel confident that Tamika Butler is a notable subject and worthy of a Wikipedia article. If you agree with this, please feel free to remove the notability tag on the article. Otherwise, please explain what needs to be improved to help this article meet the notability guidelines.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to send me a message. Matt Heard (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , hi. I will explain since you asked.

Hope it helps. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Interviews don’t count as trusted independent sources of information since it is the someone talking about themselves (it is almost WP:SELFPUB).
 * I didn’t find sources at the article notable enough. I suggest you to add mentions from at least Los Angeles Sentinel and Los Angeles Times (they both mention her) and possibly some other “big” media (WP:RS).
 * I didn't see significant coverage in media. It looks like she has appeared out of the blue sometime at 2010s with the earliest press mention being 2014.
 * It is hard to make judgements about the importance of Butler the Miles L. Rubin Public Interest Award since it is not mentioned on other Wikipedia articles outside of this one.


 * : Thank you very much for your kind and prompt reply. I found your feedback to be very insightful and informative and it is helping me be a better editor. Thank you for the thorough and thoughtful explanation of your rejection of Tamika Butler's notability.


 * You make a very good point about the issues with relying on interviews to establish notability. When I demonstrated the Curbed Los Angeles article from 2 August 2017 as evidence of Butler's notability, I meant to emphasise the aspects of the source which were relevant to it being evidence of notability: the source provides significant coverage of Butler and the source appears reliable. Upon reflection, I would consider the source a primary source as it is mostly a collection of statements by the subject. This example is not sufficiently independent from the subject, even though statements made by the interviewer would be reliable statements of fact. (E.g. "You came to LACBC toward the end of 2014, and July 14 was your last official day on the job.") Please note that all of the claims in the Wikipedia article about Tamika Butler are sourced to statements of fact by independent sources, and not sourced to anything from answers to interview questions by Butler themselves.


 * I interpret the requirement of "significant coverage" differently. I agree that Tamika Butler has not "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time," but multiple reliable sources address "the topic directly and in detail" and provide much "more than a trivial mention." (WP:N)


 * Regarding the sources themselves, I don't think they need to be notable in their own right as long as they demonstrate reliability. I presented information about their independence and editorial capacity in my original Talk page message. Adding information from the Sentinel and the Times would be good, but unless they have published an article with significant coverage of Butler, I would not consider them as evidence of her notability.


 * While the Miles L. Rubin Public Interest Award is an interesting fact, I don't consider it or the press release by Stanford Law School as evidence of her notability.


 * Again, I thank you for your helpful feedback. I am confident that Tamika Butler is notable and should have an article on Wikipedia, and I hope you are convinced by my explanations. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts, or those of anybody else who has insight on this topic. Kind regards, Matt Heard (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * : I found WP:INTERVIEW, an explanatory supplement to the Verifiability and No Original Research policies on Wikipedia. Its Notability section in particular has some relevant and interesting points to make about how to separate the unreliable, self-published nature of the interviewee discussing something from the reliable indicator of notability that comes from an interviewer "representing the 'world at large' giving attention to the subject." I would love to hear your thoughts about WP:INTERVIEW and how it relates to this article about Tamika Butler. Kind regards, Matt Heard (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * since nothing changed at the article regarding the quality of sources, my point of view hasn't changed as well. I would like to ask you what is your interest in this article? You are the only contributor to it, so I would like to know why did you make it. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * : Thank you for your reply. I have been a Wikignome for a decade and change and have an interest in creating articles about underrepresented, notable women and non-binary people. Tamika Butler is a good example of such a person. Please review my contributions for more information.


 * I have carefully considered and addressed your feedback and criticisms. Do you have more to add in response, particularly regarding what "significant coverage" means; and whether Next City, StreetsBlog LA, and whether the other referenced sources are reliable? Kind regards, Matt Heard (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)