Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Pearlman


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Nancy Pearlman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of a broadcaster and environmentalist, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion standards for broadcasters or environmentalists. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically verifiable that they exist -- the notability test is not "she has a job", but "she has received reliable source coverage from the media about her work in the job in order to establish its significance". But the references here aren't reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability: two are her own "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with, one is her IMDb profile, one is a directory entry in a political information database that maintains a profile of every single candidate in every election in the United States regardless of whether the role they were elected to passes our notability rules for politicians or not; one is her own company's proprietary YouTube channel; one is a newspaper article that just glancingly namechecks her existence in the process of not being about her; and one is impossible to verify what it is as leads to a database login screen rather than any actual content. Again, notability is not a question of using primary sources to verify that her work exists -- it's a question of using reliable and independent sources to verify that her work has been externally deemed significant by people without a vested interest in her career, but absolutely none of these seven footnotes are doing that at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete the sourcing does not show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve Nancy Pearlman was included on a Wikipedia page red list brought to our attention at a Women in Red editathon. This verifies that there is a want for a Wikipedia page about her work. Additionally, the awards she has received and the three EMMY nominations are clear reliable and independent evidence that she has and is worthy of external recognition for her work, warranting a page detailing her contributions. In line with the reason this page was created in the first place, it is worth considering why Pearlman may lack reliable sources to establish her significance. It is often much harder for women who are doing notable work to be considered as meriting the same coverage and acknowledgment as men in similar works. --Basatopa (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not our role or our mandate to exempt people from having to pass WP:GNG just because they happen to be members of underrepresented groups who might not have gotten as much media coverage as some people feel they deserved. It's not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS — our job is to follow media coverage, not to help people create their public presence by maintaining articles about people who don't already have any media coverage to verify that their work has already been externally validated as significant. So we don't create any special dispensations exempting people from actually having to have any GNG-worthy coverage just because they happen to be women (or people of colour, or LGBT, etc.), while somehow applying our regular notability standards only to straight white men
 * And it's always possible for absolutely anybody to wikilink absolutely any word or phrase in any article at any time — it's entirely possible to do this, for example, and entirely possible for editors of any article about any person to wikilink the name of every single other person named in the body text regardless of whether that other person would pass our notability standards or not (for example, you routinely see articles about politicians where somebody wikilinked the names of their non-notable spouses and children) — so "a redlink for her already existed in another article" isn't automatic grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself either. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The WP:ORG guideline, in the WP:MULTSOURCES section, actually does suggest that a determination of notability can be calibrated, e.g. "The word "multiple" is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product. Editors should recognize certain biases, such as recentism (greater availability of recent sources) when assessing historical companies or systemic bias (greater availability of English and Western sources) when discussing organizations in the developing world. Therefore, for example, a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s might establish notability with just one or two quality sources, while the same is not true for a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area." But as a general matter, WP:IAR notwithstanding, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability due to the policies and guidelines that form the core of the encyclopedia, and will thereby tend to replicate the systemic bias that has tended to exclude marginalized people from WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage.
 * Per WP:HEY, I have revised the article and added sources, because I was able to find a 1990 Los Angeles Times article with in-depth coverage, a 2017 Canyon News profile, a 2006 OC Register article with early biographical information, a quote in a 2007 HuffPost article, a slightly more complete 2018 Azerbaijan source about some of her television work, a 2017 LA Weekly article with more than a trivial mention of her political career, and a 2013 endorsement from the Los Angeles Times. I'm not sure how to incorporate biographical information from these and other related sources that also provide context for the OC Register article above: ABC News, NYT Times, SFGate, Inside Edition, New Yorker, but I am tending to think WP:BASIC notability may be established. Beccaynr (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The first three references must show in-depth, independent coverage that WP:SECONDARY in nature. The first three on here, are name drops. The first must prove bone fides. Where is it? It needs a much deeper integration of secondary sources to make the article work. It just not there at the moment. If it going to kept under a WP:HEY, then it needs a transformation and very quickly.     scope_creep Talk  14:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Comment I sugest that the above arguments iamounts to sayign, elete, because poorly written. If that were our policy....  DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 21 March 2021 (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.