User talk:Geo Swan/Rachel Giese

deleted at afd 2017-08-05
Articles for deletion/Rachel Giese 2017-08-05. I requested userification on 2018-05-29. Geo Swan (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW the automated tool twinkle failed to leave me a heads-up, as required by policy, so I did not have an opportunity to weigh in, during the afd.


 * Nomination asserts: "of the ten sources here, four are Q&A-style interviews where she's talking about something other than herself and thus fails to be the subject of the coverage". Among the factors that make an individual notable are peer recognition, as stated in the special purpose notability guideline WP:ACADEMICS.  Of course an interview with someone, where they speak about themselves, would be a notability factor.  And interviews where an individual is recognized as an expert, and is sought out for their expertise, is also a notability factor.  Consider two individuals, someone whose notability lies in genuine accomplishments, genuine expertise, and another individual who wants to be like Kim Kardashian, a celebutante most notable for merely being famous, known for their attempts at self-exposure.  The first individual talks about their expertise, the second individual merely talks about themselves.  Is nominator  really arguing only Kim Kardashian style interviews add to an individual's notability?  When an interviewer chooses to interview someone about their field of expertise it is a recognition of their notablity in their field.  The USCG has been launching cutters that are all named after enlisted heroes.  I have been starting articles on the vessel's namesakes, as the vessels were launched.  Some of them were challenged at Afd.  Defenders recognized that the Coast Guard, and the community of retired Coast Guard personnel, considered the namesakes leading figures in their field.  The recognition of one's peers, and others with competency in one's field, should be recognized as a notability factor.  Giese's interviews are a recognition that she is a significant figure in her field.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I am not "really arguing only Kim Kardashian style interviews add to an individual's notability" — no style of interview, Kardashian or otherwise, adds to the interviewee's notability at all. Q&A interviews are permitted to be used for simple verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by stronger sources — for example, you could use an interview in which Giese talks about her sexual orientation as a reference for the fact that she's LGBT — but an interview does not count as a data point toward the question of whether the person clears GNG in the first place. A person does not gain notability by talking about themselves or other things in Q&A interviews — a person gains notability by being the subject of coverage by other people, not by being the writer of or speaker in her own sources. The only kind of source that supports notability, whether for a Giese or a Kardashian, is a source in which somebody else (not the article subject herself) is writing or talking about her. And that has to be in the context of her work, not in the context of her buying a house, which is why the Toronto Star article isn't helping to build notability either — that article isn't about her doing anything that's relevant to whether she belongs in an encyclopedia or not. If you're trying to make her notable as a journalist, then the coverage needs to be about her journalism, not about her living room furniture or her mortgage or her recipe for kale chips. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply.
 * You wrote: "but an interview does not count as a data point toward the question of whether the person clears GNG in the first place. A person does not gain notability by talking about themselves or other things in Q&A interviews — a person gains notability by being the subject of coverage by other people, not by being the writer of or speaker in her own sources." Right.  And when they are being interviewed, either about their field, or about themselves, it is because the interviewer, and the interviewer's editor, considered the interview subject interesting -- ie notable.  If the interview isn't published in a WP:Reliable source, the interview is not a notability factor.  You pointed out that it is the opinion of other people which confer notability.  Interviewers, and their editors, are other people.  Earlier this week an undocumented migrant, in France, very heroically rescued a toddler dangling from a fifth floor balcony.  Video of him performing this rescue were widely viewed.  So, was he notable?  When did he become notable?  What made him notable?  I am sure that there were contributors who argued he was not notable, as he was an example of BLP1E.  What made him notable was coverage of him that extended beyond the actual rescue.  RS that wrote about him as a symbol made him notable.  And if RS chose to interview him, that would add additional notability to our notability calculation.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, no, that's not how notability works. For any source to assist in establishing Rachel Giese's notability, Rachel Giese has to be the thing that is getting spoken about, by somebody other than herself. An interview in which she's the speaker cannot satisfy that test: if she's speaking about herself, then it fails to be third party coverage about her in the third person, and if she's speaking about something other than herself, then she fails to be the thing that is being spoken about. A person is not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they've done talking head for the media: interviews in which she is the speaker can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after GNG has already been cleared by enough of the correct type of sourcing, but they are not bringers of GNG in and of themselves. A person clears a notability standard by being the subject of reliable source coverage about her, not by talking about herself or other things in interviews. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Nomination states: "two are "staff" profiles on the websites of her agent and a media organization she's worked for; two are directories of her writings for other publications she's contributed to." Okay.  Why does a publication list rival publications a contributor has written for?  Hint, they don't do it to aid their rivals.  I suggest they list those publications to establish why their writer is worth paying attention to.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's entirely irrelevant to notability. A person's notability cannot be established by her own staff profiles on the websites of her own employers, regardless of whether those staff profiles mention other employers that she's worked for besides them — a source has to be independent of her to assist in establishing notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)