Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:48, 14 January 2024

Michele Evans

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded by Escape Orbit as "Self published author, fails notability. Article reads like an autobiography focused on linking to Amazon and Barns and Noble self-published books". Prod removed without explanation here, but like EO I can find no evidence of notability. I don't think any of the sources in the article currently contribute to GNG: they're either by Evans, do not discuss her in depth, or "rumors/gossip". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history, the like links were added when the inclusion of the description of the book was contested and were put in place to allow the reader to view them from their origin.

I'm really surprised at the hate Michele is receiving. She is not just an author so deleting based on self publishing assertions fall flat.

Must I provide example after example of articles on wikipedia that have less documentation?

It is my position you are targeting Michele because of her situation with Sharpe. Which by the way, article after article could be sourced providing these indepth sources which are claimed to be missing.

This article reads as it does because no discussion on Michele is allowed and anything thing not sterile is swiftly deleted. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing more than WP:SOURCESEXIST, with a bunch of unsupported and completely false theorising about my motives on top. If "article after article ... providing these indepth sources" exists, then provide them. I have looked and I cannot find them, so until some evidence that they actually exist is provided I can only assume that they do not. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't find articles on Michele Evans and Shannon Sharpe?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michele-bundy-accuses-shannon-sharpe-of-sex-assault-cbs-analyst-steps-aside/

https://www.tmz.com/2010/09/17/shannon-sharpe-accuser-michele-bundy-nfl-denver-broncos-relationship-dating-2002/

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/tarnished-twenty/michele-bundy-files-restraining-order-against-shannon-sharpe/

https://www.westword.com/news/shannon-sharpe-takes-leave-from-cbs-due-to-restraining-order-see-documents-here-5861925

https://www.tvguide.com/news/shannon-sharpe-sexual-assault-1023089/

https://www.nydailynews.com/2010/09/15/shannon-sharpe-takes-leave-of-absence-from-cbs-after-michele-bundy-alleges-sex-assault/

https://nypost.com/2019/09/22/antonio-brown-glued-to-twitter-after-being-sacked-by-patriots/

https://www.denverpost.com/2010/09/14/sharpe-to-take-leave-of-absence-from-cbs/

These are just a few. Assuming is not cool my friend. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Post is not reliable, TMZ is questionably reliable, and none of these sources are in depth coverage of Evans which contribute to establishing her notability. If the only reason Evans ever recieved any mention in reliable sources was that she filed for a restraining order against Shannon Sharpe back in 2010, then at best maybe this could be a redirect to Shannon Sharpe#Personal life, except this was clearly so irrelevant that it isn't even mentioned in that article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!!!! So we are going to just gloss over the fact she was published in the NEW YORK TIMES????? Make her life about Shannon? The only reason these links were included was to dispute claims articles don't exist. To downplay her success is shameful. Do you know how hard it is to get your work published in the New York Times? Have you done it? Why not?

Redirect to SHANNON????? I am dumbfounded that was even typed! She is a software engineer who you have probably used her brain cells given she developed the video player for espn.com and march madness, not to mention tiger woods website, which has a citation. Right click on that cited archive page and view source to confirm she was one of the engineers on his website!

She has authored 4 published books. Made Movies. Written screenplays. Was a sports reporter. Is an advocate for social justice reform, testifying at the city council etc.

And you want to make her life about Shannon??? Redirect? OMG!! I would like to nominate you as a hostile contributor. How do I do that? 69.117.93.145 (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first you would sign in using something more than an IP address so we can properly set the thing up, then you can make a complain about their conduct if you must. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have to "provide example after example of articles on wikipedia that have less documentation" - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GoingBatty (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Thank you! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have found articles with less sourcing, you are welcome to nominate them for deletion as well. Thank you for bringing them to our attention in that case. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN RAJU Can't help but notice you added all these. discussion groups but left off Domestic Violence deletion discussion inclusion. Was that because it doesn't exist or because you included only ones you felt were relevant? Please add the Domestic Violence deletion discussion if it exists! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Domestic violence. GoingBatty (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. None of the above sources are SIGCOV in my opinion. ~~In the article, this NY Times article might be but it is locked beyond a paywall.~~ The rest of the sources there are not SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a second look I see the NY Times article is an opinion piece written by her. Alvaldi (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added Santa Clara University link to enhance 69.117.93.145 (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Santa Clara University source is not a WP:SIGCOV about Evans. Alvaldi (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including for reference because comments made in discussion DO NOT align with Wikipedia standards: Please refer to bolded text.

Notability requires verifiable evidence

Shortcuts

The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires multible sources of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None have been presented here. Alvaldi (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of all that is holly. Added 15 reliable sources to the article that are independent of the subject. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if the new 15 are not enough. I'll get more but feel adding more is redundant. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition is what is generally called a WP:REFBOMB. These are all just coverage of the same 2010 case that briefly mention the subject. There is no significant coverage of Evans/Bundy in those sources. Alvaldi (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content is where your position fails. It is in no way a refbomb according to the very definition. To say articles about bundy/evans getting a restraining order against sharpe are just brief mentions is untrue at best. The whole articles are about her. Unless of course, you are reading with biased colored glasses. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing about her in those sources is that she got a temporary restraining order on another individual in 2010 which was rescinded a few days later. The fact that the individual that was accused is notable does not make Evans/Bundy notable per WP:INVALIDBIO (in short, having a connection to a notable person does not make someone notable). And even if they had significant coverage of the person, they still would fail WP:SUSTAINED as brief bursts of news coverage over a period of a few days is not enough to demonstrate notability. Alvaldi (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped adding sources because it had become redundant. The talk continues still to this day and is why Sharpe has finally been brought to court. Again it must be stressed, Evans has her own notability outside of Sharpe. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She likely does, but there are few to no extensive sources used in the writing of this article, is the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to be acknowledged. Urge you to vote keep. Perhaps call Denver Weekly and ask for copies of 2001 NBA & NFL seasons. Sources have to exist, not be on the internet. Leads have been provided, follow them. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Evans' book on Rikers Island, in which she is an established expert by being incarcerated there, and who had her work about the subject, previously published by the reliable, independent publication, New York Times, is tantamount to this discussion. Please try to read the fine print of what you are making claims about! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS/SPS 69.117.93.145 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, self-published and autobiographical sources can be reliable. Nobody is disputing that. The question is whether Evans is notable, and notability requires independent sources. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is an independent source. I can't believe I even have to type that! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times piece is written by Michele Evans. It's clearly not an independent source Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her notability seems to be based on a few things;

Author. Self published only, so unlikely to be notable
Software Engineer. Not notable. Creating Tiger Woods' website is not sufficient, and source cited does not support this claim.
Sports Reporter. Possibly, but entirely unsourced and almost purposely vague.
A single op-ed in The New York Times written by her.
An appearance before New York City Council, about the same matter
Her relationship with her husband and former boyfriend. Notability is not inherited, and it's not Wikipedia's job to air the trials of otherwise private individuals not in the public eye. (Whether they are ok with that or not.)
Her descent from "notable historical figures" - as above, notability is not inherited
Her film-making. Potentially her strongest claim, but the sources are either just a listings of herself in IMDB and one of her films in a user generated website. These are not sufficient. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To refute your points:

"Author. Self published only, so unlikely to be notable"??? Please refer to WP:RS/SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Evans' book on Rikers Island, in which she is an established expert by being incarcerated there, and who had her work about the subject, previously published by the reliable, independent publication, New York Times, is tantamount to this discussion.

"Creating Tiger Woods' website is not sufficient, and source cited does not support this claim." View the source of https://web.archive.org/web/20070609230258/http://www.tigerwoods.com/noflash.sps you can do this by right-clicking on the page. Michele is listed as being a Sr. Software Engineer on Tigers Website.

A "single op-ed" in the Times? Let's be honest, have you accomplished that? Downplaying her accomplishment is tacky.

"An appearance before New York City Council, about the same matter". Please read the sources for which you are speaking. Evans advocated for Women being able to have their babies under one year old with them as the law permits. The times article is about covid.

"Her relationship with her husband and former boyfriend. Notability is not inherited, and it's not Wikipedia's job to air the trials of otherwise private individuals not in the public eye." You are suggesting she should gain notability from these men? Her notability is all her own. Why would you suggest there is notability to be gained from her husband? What did he do that makes him notable in your eyes and not her? And not that it matters but sharpe is in the public eye.

"Her descent from "notable historical figures" - as above, notability is not inherited" Why would one think she derives notability from them? It's in a section labeled personal life. It is about her. Her story, which includes them and they are notable here on Wikipedia which makes the addition of thier information relevant.

"Her film-making. Potentially her strongest claim, but the sources are either just a listings of herself in IMDB and one of her films in a user generated website." Wrong, her films are viewable as streams and are valid proof as a filmmaker. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are having difficulty understanding the differences between reliability of sources and notability. The discussion here is about her notability in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. All I mentioned above is what someone (perhaps yourself) saw fit to include in her article. If you do not think something adds to her notability, then good, we are in agreement. Nor do I. You also need to understand the distinction between being judged notable for the purposes of a Wikipedia article, and any kind of judgement on her worth, opinions, claims, life or causes. Not having a Wikipedia article does not cast any aspersions on her. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You are having difficulty understanding WP:NPOSSIBLE "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" 69.117.93.145 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again we are agreed. The sources currently on the article are not adequate in demonstrating notability. So I urge you to find the existence of suitable sources, and the matter will be resolved. Others have tried and failed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try contacting Denver Weekly and ask for copies of 2001 NBA & NFL seasons. Sources have to exist, not be on the internet. Leads have been provided, follow them. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Escape Orbit summarises things easily enough, fails notability guidelines at the present time. Kathleen's bike (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an articleBold 69.117.93.145 (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in RS found about her. Writing an opinion piece in the NYT is fine, but it's a primary source, and she's only had ONE published. She isn't exactly a prolific columnist in the Times with several dozen articles to her name. Source 35 is a RS, but it talks about two different people and mentions this person in passing. I'm not seeing notability as there is little to no extensive coverage about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article 69.117.93.145 (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and we have no reliable sources, none exist. Thank you for confirming that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get no reliable sources exist out of that? Nobody confirmed anything. Don't put words in my mouth to suit your agenda kind sir... 69.117.93.145 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm repeating what I stated above, again. Do as you must. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NPOSSIBLE Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.93.145 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just where are those sources that have significant coverage of the subject? I merely ask because none have been presented here in the AfD, none are in the article itself and nobody has been able to find any. Alvaldi (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cited new source in article https://filmfreeway.com/MicheleEvans 69.117.93.145 (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOSSIBLE Again just because you are not aware does not mean they don't exist! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a site for filmmakers to submit their projects. Again it is written by Evans and therefore is not independent. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you complained about no evidence for her being a reporter. I gave you video evidence enough to prove she was a known personality whether you like it or not. Let's be clear. Evans's memoir is a separate piece of work from her being a sports reporter. What's your position? Was she a sports reporter or not? 69.117.93.145 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about whether or not she was a sports reporter, and nor do I care. Evans having been a sports reporter is only relevant to this discussion if there are independent reliable sources discussing Evans as a sports reporter, which might contribute to demonstrating her notability, which I have not found and you have not provided. My position is that Evans' memoir is obviously not independent of Evans, and therefore doesn't count towards her notability. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the response below. There are independent reliable sources. They do not have to be accessible via the Internet. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge the question all you want. She was a sports reporter. Your words: Evans as a sports reporter, which might contribute to demonstrating her notability.

Context matters. Clearly, Michele Evans was a sports reporter and any one who says differently is not being truthful or unbiased. That video evidence would hold up in court my friend, under the tightest of scrutinies, let alone for Wikipedia!!!! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please do not selectively quote me to mean something completely different to what I said. I did not say that Evans having been a sports reporter might contribute to demonstrating her notability, I said that if there are sources about Evans as a sports reporter, that might contribute to demonstrating notability. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a source

Shortcut WP:SOURCEDEF

A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited.

Definition of published

"WP:PUBLISHED" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Published (WP:PUBLISH).

Shortcut WP:PUBLISHED

Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form. The term is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

Context Matters Shortcuts. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. WP:RSCONTEXT

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

Let me repeat: It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

WP:NPOSSIBLE Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.

Lets use this one example. https://filmfreeway.com/MicheleEvans

It is a source
It was made available to the public in some form
It was published
The media was recorded, broadcast, distributed and archived
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article
It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.
Source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article

With these things in mind, https://filmfreeway.com/MicheleEvans is reliable for the statement on the wikipedia article that says Michele Evans was a sports reporter. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it doesn't help establish notability for the article, as we need more than a "she works here" post. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Denver Weekly and ask for copies of 2001 NBA & NFL seasons. Sources have to exist, not be on the internet. Leads have been provided, follow them. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is history of people attempting to erase Evans life to suit their agenda. The continuation of this theme by deleting her family is interesting. The misogyny displayed here, whether intentional or not is a bit much and I wouldn't be surprised if this thread makes its way into her memoir. Her meticulously documented family doesn't go away BTW! The pen is mightier than the sword. Anybody can delete. Regardless of what is decided here, Evans' list of accomplishments will continue to grow, which begs the question, Do you really want to be on the wrong side of history? 69.117.93.145 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 ::Yes, but it doesn't help establish notability for the article, as we need more than a "she works here" post. [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 21:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 :::Contact Denver Weekly and ask for copies of 2001 NBA & NFL seasons. Sources have to exist, not be on the internet. Leads have been provided, follow them. [[Special:Contributions/69.117.93.145|69.117.93.145]] ([[User talk:69.117.93.145|talk]]) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
+:There is history of people attempting to erase Evans life to suit their agenda.  The continuation of this theme by deleting her family is interesting.  The misogyny displayed here, whether intentional or not is a bit much and I wouldn't be surprised if this thread makes its way into her memoir.  Her meticulously documented family doesn't go away BTW!  The pen is mightier than the sword.  Anybody can delete. Regardless of what is decided here, Evans' list of accomplishments will continue to grow, which begs the question, Do you really want to be on the wrong side of history? [[Special:Contributions/69.117.93.145|69.117.93.145]] ([[User talk:69.117.93.145|talk]]) 19:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)