Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Giese


 * 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. bd2412 T 03:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Rachel Giese

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a journalist, which is based almost entirely on primary sources rather than reliable ones: 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; 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; and one is the Google Books entry for her book. None of these constitute the kind of coverage required to get a person over WP:JOURNALIST at all — but the only source here that actually meets the reliable sourcing requirements, by virtue of being third party coverage about her, is (a) covering her in the context of buying a house with her partner, not in the context of a notable career accomplishment, and (b) still in a publication that she's contributed to in the past, which thus isn't fully independent of her. As always, a journalist does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because she can be nominally verified as existing — but neither the substance nor the sourcing here demonstrates that she meets the standards necessary to qualify for one. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete – With no independent sources cited, the article doesn't show that she's notable. KSFT  (t&#124;c) 20:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep News personality, writer and host of events, sources here. Source here (writer as personality), she's in the story here, she is profiled and interviewed here, she's interviewed here, in sum a keeper people, meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you find any sources with significant coverage that are independent of her? Most seem to be either written by her or interviews with her. KSFT  (t&#124;c) 23:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If Giese was simply a reporter, writing stories, with a byline, then I'd agree that she would probably not be notable. But the thing is that Giese, herself, is often the story -- her viewpoints clearly identified with her -- and she's an important columnist, which is why Giese is interviewed in other media, not just one or two publications, but many, such as the Edmonton Journal here. Like, she's quoted in other publications about other news personalities; her views are quoted here too. Not only that, but her personal life is chronicled as well. That is, she's an important news and commentator in Canada's largest city. Another source here. A multi-faceted media personality according to the Globe and Mail (a WP:RS) which wrote that "...executive director Rachel Giese, a visible media figure in Toronto (a former Xtra features editor, board member for This Magazine, CBC producer, guest host on the Newsworld show counterSpin, and Toronto Star columnist). She is heading up a film festival that, she agrees, is in excellent shape...". Remember I'm not commenting on the current state of the Wikipedia article which I haven't really looked at much, just on her notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A journalist gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of enough media coverage about her to clear WP:GNG, not by merely being quoted giving soundbite about her views on other subjects or by having her name mentioned in coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Like being the subject here and being the subject here too, stuff like that?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Stuff like very much not that. Link #1 is an article in the Homes section about her buying a house, in a newspaper she's been a contributor to — so it has exactly nothing to do with making her notable as a journalist, because it is a non-independent source whose primary reason for existing is that she's a personal friend of the writer, and not because anything related to journalism. Link #2 is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about something other than herself — a class of sourcing which can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by better sources, but cannot be a bringer of GNG in its own right. Try again, because neither of those cut the mustard at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure they're good sources. So is this one here -- and why do sources have to talk about her as a journalist, when she has many other roles, such as being a mother, a home buyer, and so forth? What's important is that she's getting substantial coverage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because being a mother and a home buyer are not notability claims that a person gets a Wikipedia article for. To count toward establishing that she passes GNG, a source has to be covering her in the context of something that passes a notability criterion. And no, that CBC clip isn't a notability-assisting source either — again, she's the interviewee and not the subject of the source. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the sources are of insufficient depth, mostly soundbites and interviews, as in:
 * "It is a modern moral dilemma: should you monitor your kid's online life? Matt Galloway spoke with Rachel Giese, she is a Toronto journalist and mother with a 13-year-old son. Her article, "Minor Infractions", was published by Real Life Magazine."
 * These types of sources are WP:SPIP rather than independent. BLPs deserve better than this. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2017 (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.