Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Westervelt


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm not giving weight to the IP that just linked to a Google search, and less weight to Piotrus's keep because he refers to an argument later abandoned by the person who made it after more in-depth discussion.  Sandstein  09:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Amy Westervelt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a journalist, whose claims of notability are not properly referenced to media coverage: her list of media outlets that she's contributed to is referenced to her own self-published Squarespace page, not to media coverage about her; her book is referenced to its own promotional page on the website of its own publisher, not to media coverage about it; her award win is referenced to a press release from the organization that gives the award, not to media coverage about it. None of this is "inherently" notable enough to exempt an article about her from having to be referenced better than this -- the notability test is not what the article says, but how well the things it says can be referenced to reliable source coverage about her in media. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment She's a well known journalist. References aplenty. 2.34.241.247 (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just showing the results page of a Google search is not enough in and of itself to demonstrate that a journalist is notable enough for a Wikipedia article — it fails, for one thing, to distinguish references that are sufficiently about her to count as valid support for notability from (a) references thatjust glancingly namecheck her existence without being about her to any non-trivial degree, and/or (b) references in which she's the bylined author, neither of which assist in showing notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. Searching for and "distinguishing" the relevant references is the job the nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. 2.34.241.247 (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's the job you're supposed to do if you expect any of the references to count as convincing evidence that she is notable. I already did a search and didn't find that the references were "distinguishable" into the correct proportion of notability-making coverage about her vs. unsubstantive other stuff that doesn't actually help. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very heavily covered journalist, from the likes of Pacific Standard, Marketplace (radio program), WBUR-FM and Slate (magazine). Oakshade (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note, however, that coverage of Westervelt on NPR stations is probably not INDEPENDENT, since article states that she has worked for a series of them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * One of those is a 404, and one of them is an interview in which she's talking about herself in Q&A format. Those are not sources that assist in building a WP:GNG pass for a person who hasn't already cleared an "inherently" notable SNG, and GNG requires more than two sources, so what's left isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The one of the four sources not working has been corrected but even if the link didn't work here, that doesn't magically mean the in-depth coverage doesn't exist. As for one of them being an itnerview, once again it has to be explained that when a source independent of a person is publishing an interview of the person that the independent source conducted, that is in-depth coverage of that person by the source.  It only wouldn't be independent if person was self-publishing an interview.  But that's just one of the sources anyway. Oakshade (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the "GNG requires more than two sources" bit. Wrong.  WP:GNG states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."  Multiple sources here.  Two, and sometimes even one can demonstrate passing of WP:GNG.   Oakshade (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm not actually wrong — the number of sources it takes to pass GNG is indeed not fixed, but it is a factor of what notability claim you're shooting for. If a person has a hard notability pass, such as winning a Pulitzer Prize for her book, then one or two sources are enough to pass GNG — but if you're aiming for the soft notability criterion of "notable because media coverage of her exists", then it takes considerably more than just one or two sources. The list of people who could show two pieces of media coverage includes presidents of church bake sale committees, everybody who was ever an unsuccessful candidate for city council, teenagers who got local human interest coverage for trying out for their high school football team despite having a non-standard number of toes, my mother's neighbour who got into the papers a few years ago for finding a pig in her yard, and me — so if you're shooting for "doesn't actually have a hard pass of any subject-specific inclusion test, but is notable anyway just because media coverage exists", then it takes quite a lot more media coverage to get there than it does for somebody who actually has a straight pass of a subject-specific inclusion test. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for admitting you were wrong on WP:GNG requiring "more than two sources" ("the number of sources it takes to pass GNG is indeed not fixed"). The coverage presented is way beyond the scope that "media coverage exists" but significant independent coverage from multiple independent sources.  The claim that the coverage is akin to your neighbor's mother getting in a local paper one time is bizarre and has nothing to do with the coverage demonstrating easily passing WP:GNG here. Oakshade (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't wrong and didn't "admit" anything: I have been correct all along about how GNG works. Two sources are enough to pass GNG only if they're supporting a hard notability claim such as the winning of a notable literary award — two sources are not enough to pass GNG if you're aiming for "notable because media coverage exists". There still aren't sources in play here that constitute support for notability under GNG — all ten of the footnotes present in the article are still either primary sources (directories of her own writing, etc.) that do not count as support for notability at all, or Q&A interviews in which she's the speaker. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You did admit you were wrong about the number of sources required. You can never erase the diff. You're only making red herring arguments as you're writing about only the sources in the article, not that I've presented in this AfD which is significant coverage by multiple reliable sources of this person passing WP:GNG, not just "notable because media coverage exists."  And you just made up the must-win-award criteria for GNG. Oakshade (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're completely misrepresenting everything I've said. Firstly, the diff you're linking as "proof" that I "admitted I was wrong about the number of sources required" is no such thing — there's not a single word in that entire comment that's even slightly inconsistent with what I just said in the comment immediately above. Secondly, I've already addressed earlier in this discussion why the new sources you've shown aren't enough. And thirdly, not once in this entire discussion did I ever say that a person has to win an award before they pass GNG — what I said, and am correct about, is that if a person wins a notability-conferring award, such as the Pulitzer Prize for literature, then just one or two sources are enough to start the article with, but if you're shooting for "notable just because media coverage exists", then it takes more than just one or two sources to get over that bar. We have "hard" notability claims, which represent important enough distinctions that an article has to be allowed to exist as soon as just one or two reliable sources can be shown (e.g. winning a notability-conferring literary award, being elected to an NPOL-passing office, etc.), and we have "soft" notability claims, where notability is not automatically extended to everybody who can show just one or two reliable sources. "Notable because media coverage exists" is the soft kind, where it takes considerably more sources to get a person over GNG than it does for a person who has a hard notability claim — lots of people who have no serious reason to actually belong in an encyclopedia can easily still show one or two pieces of reliable source coverage, which is precisely why "notable because media coverage exists" requires more than just one or two sources. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You actually did admit you were wrong about GNG "requiring" more than 2 sources. Here's your quote: "the number of sources it takes to pass GNG is indeed not fixed".  In nowhere in GNG does it demand an award be won by a person in addition to significant coverage by independent reliable sources. But the coverage I presented is far beyond "coverage exists" but significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, and more than two - you keep on ignoring the fact that the broken source you noted in your first response has been fixed.  Anyway, this person is the recipient of the Rachel Carson Award so even by your invented standards this person easily passes WP:GNG.Oakshade (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're still misrepresenting what I said. Nowhere in this discussion did I say that winning an award was a necessary precondition of passing GNG — what I said, and am correct about, is that if a person has won an award that is notable enough to confer an ANYBIO pass, then one source which confirms that award win is enough to get the article kept and merely flagged for reference improvement, but one source is not enough to get the article kept if the notability claim you're shooting for is "just because media coverage exists". That is not the same thing as claiming that GNG requires an award win in order to get passed in the first place — I never said that at all, and you're putting words in my mouth if you think I did. But also, as has been pointed out below, she did not win the Rachel Carson Award, she won a secondary award that was presented at the same ceremony and announced in the same press release as other people winning the Rachel Carson Award. And an award doesn't get over ANYBIO just because it can technically be referenced to a primary source press release written and distributed by the granting organization itself, either — the test for whether an award is notable enough to get its winners over ANYBIO for winning it hinges directly on the extent to which media can be shown to care enough about the award to do journalism about it. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Bearcat is right, to demonstrate notability there has to be substantial and sustained coverage about the person. Like an author is judged by those who write about them (not about what they write themselves), a journalist is judged by what others write about them, not the interviews they do with famous people, etc. Ifnord (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man argument as the case of keeping is in fact based on significant coverage about this person satisfying WP:GNG not "the interviews they do with famous people, etc." Oakshade (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete . No in-depth coverage (WP:INTERVIEWS at best, and those are problematic, 2-3 paragraphs in another source). Minor awards. Recent book that doesn't suffice to pass WP:NAUTHOR. At best, WP:TOOSOON. Let's wait for her to win a notable award or for someone to write about her life and work in a proper fashion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep per Rebecca's point about at least two of her awards being notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, Rebecca, please take another look at those awards per my comment below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete She is a widely published, highly regarded journalist. But there is not enough written about her or about her work to pass WP:JOURNALIST.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep, and Question She has already won three awards for her journalism, so I would have thought she would meet WP:ANYBIO. Where does it state that there has to be media coverage of those awards for them to count? (Answer: it doesn't, it just says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." #3 of WP:ANYBIO is "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication" - should there be media coverage of a DNB entry for it to count?) The awards are notable, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - there are Wikipedia articles for two of them. The article could certainly be improved, and it might then be clearer that she meets notability guidelines - but the information is there. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed to delete per E.M.Gregory's review of the awards. The Audubon Rachel Carson award, according to the Wikipedia page, appears to be a fellowship or internship, and nowhere near as prestigious as either the Audubon Medal or the Rachel Carson Award. There is media coverage of the RTDNA awards, but I agree, there are so many regional awards that they are not very notable. A Murrow award at National level might be, but as E.M.Gregory has pointed out, it's one of many categories in many classes, in many regions, and she was one of six or so people in the reporting team (even though lead reporter, according to a report about it). Thanks for digging deeper into the awards! RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Media coverage of the award is what tells us whether an award is "well-known and significant" or not. In the absence of adequate media coverage of the award to establish that it's a notable award in the first place, absolutely every award that exists at all could claim to be "well-known and significant" enough to get its winners over ANYBIO — we have seen people attempt to claim ANYBIO passes on the basis of winning local "Best Community Gardener" awards from neighbourhood homeowner associations, and writing awards from local poetry clubs, and film awards from the "buy your film an award for PR purposes" class of fake film festivals, and even high school honour rolls. So it's not the statement of winning just any award that gets a person over ANYBIO — the award has to surpass a certain depth and breadth of media coverage about it in order to establish that it's notable enough for us to deem its winners notable at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I have made a start on making her claims to notability clearer in the article, by adding an Awards section and a lead sentence. The article still needs a lot of work, to be more neutral and less about now (eg she may be based in Lake Tahoe now (actually in Truckee, California, I think), but she has not always been, and how relevant is where she lives?).
 * About those 3 awards. 1.) "2007 - Folio Eddie and Ozzie Award"  is this given by Folio (disambiguation) Folio a non bluelinked trade magazine?  2.) She did not win the   Rachel Carson Award, she won a special award given by the  National Audubon Society's Women in Conservation sub-organization in 2015 to a group of  for green journalism to a group of 6 journalists of which she was one.  3.) Edward R. Murrow Award (Radio Television Digital News Association) appears to be given ever year in dozens, perhaps scores of categories. She appears to have won in the category "for the best small-market radio news series." in region 2, but  this award was given in 14 regions and within each region it was given in  ~50 categories.  That works out to about 700 of Edward R. Murrow awards are given every year..  These are not the sort of "major" awards that carry someone past WP:JOURNALIST.  To me, this continues to look like WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.