Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Josh Cahill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Turquoise (talk | contribs) at 03:31, 6 March 2024 (→‎Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2024: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2024: Need help replying due to not having 30/500

This page received ECP, which was much needed, but because I don't have 30/500 I need some help to be able to reply.

Can someone add the following in response to @Jpatokal's keep recommendation[1] and attribute it to me?

  • I'm not seeing WP:JDL at all. To me, JDL means the absence of logical arguments, hence the "just" in "I just don't like it."
While @DarmaniLink's comment at the end of his proposal might be bad etiquette as per WP:AFDEQ, it certainly doesn't negate the arguments raised by him that immediately precede that comment nor do I think it warrants dismissing the arguments raised.
Specifically with regards to Freie Presse, I didn't mean to suggest that articles being deleted say anything about the reliability of FP as a source. Rather the articles not existing anymore with no archive that can tell us what the article said makes them unusable to establish notability because the only option would be to "just trust me, bro" based on the memory of editors This might be less of an issue for including some (non-contentious) facts in an article where once the source existed to support that fact and multiple editors can attest to it, it's an entirely different matter to establish notability imho. That said, you seemed to have implied that the articles might've not been web-only. So I've trawled the e-paper archives of all the local editions of Freie Presse and wasn't able to find any indication that they ended up in a physical issue of the newspaper.
I was able to find one article still live on the FP website with an archive mirror that gives us access to the whole article[2]. The article doesn't seem suitable for notability purposes, however, because it's human interest reporting, meant to accompany the FP's blog section where they used to let locals write up a blog[3][4] (hence the link to that blog section at the end). Plus, it seems rather far removed from the notability we're trying to save the article with (i.e., local youth that's going to hitchhike and couch-surf v. YouTuber/aviation vlogger). In other words, great to flesh out an article with as a fun little tidbit, not so great to establish notability. It'd be like using a local human interest piece on a president's school debate club award to establish notability when you're actually trying to establish their notability as a politician.
The other examples you linked have some other issues that have been touched upon in part by others. The main issue would be that Cahill isn't the topic of those articles, making them like the the dime-a-dozen articles I've included examples of down below in a seperate comment. While it's certainly not necessary for the subject to be the main topic, it needs to be more than a trivial mention, and I think that those examples aren't able to overcome that WP:SIGCOV hurdle. Keep in mind that WP:GNG also expects multiple sources.WP:BASIC further clarifies those GNG requirements by saying: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (emphasis mine).
That leaves the Corriere interview. Which clearly is significant coverage within that piece. I'm not sure if it would qualify as human interest because I'm not too familiar with the outlet and the tone of the article, so let's assume it isn't. That would leave us with one suitable RS to establish notability with; I don't think that's sufficient to change my recommendation.
Perhaps it's also good to explain my reasoning a bit, perhaps I'm making a logical error and that way someone can point that out to me for me to reassess my recommendation. The way I see it, a subject either needs to pass the WP:GNG or a WP:SNG and not be excluded under any of the items listed in WP:NOT to enjoy the presumption that it merits an article.
This presumption is no guarantee; there may be reasons to not include an article beyond everything that's listed in WP:NOT and WP:WHYN could provide some guidance, because it explains some of the reasoning behind all these guidelines.
Additionally, WP:RS is key for all of this, with the understanding that just because an outlet is generally considered WP:REPUTABLE, that doesn't mean that everything they publish is deemed a reliable source. A lot of it depends on context (even beyond WP:RSCONTEXT). Things like WP:RSEDITORIAL, WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSOPINION are also to be taken into account.
With all of that taken into account, I can't recommend to keep the article. In addition to what I listed in my recommendation comment, it doesn't pass GNG or a SNG and I also see some issues with WP:NOT. Perhaps in the future, but right not it seems WP:TOOSOON. ConcurrentState (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep asserting that "The main issue would be that Cahill isn't the topic of those articles", but this assertion is patently absurd. Here are the titles:
  • Bangkok Post: "Vlogger faces backlash"
  • SCMP: "German vlogger gets death threat over critical review of Singapore Airlines"
  • New Indian: "India’s Vistara Hits Back At German Vlogger Over Roster Accusations, Malpractices"
  • news.com.au: "Travel blogger ‘bullied’ by airline after posting mid-flight bad review"
  • AsiaOne: "Foreign travel vlogger considers Singapore Airlines cabin crew a 'letdown'"
In other words, Josh Cahill is the primary subject of all these articles, and easily passes the "more than a trivial mention" bar.
Also, your familiarity with Wikipedia policy is quite astonishing for a user who joined 11 days ago. Is there something we should know, or do we need another CheckUser here? Jpatokal (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I've made assertions about the topic of the articles you've presented. Still, there's a reason why WP:HEADLINES is included in the RS guidelines. Headlines aren't reliable sources and one of the reasons is because they don't they necessarily reflect who or what is the topic or focus of an article. A headline along the lines of "Person gets food poisoning from food served during flight" doesn't make the person the subject of the article, it makes the airline and, more specifically, the food they serve the subject.
ConcurrentState (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this as a reply to their comment here[5]

  • I don't think articles like that have much to do with the person involved being notable. Articles like that are a dime a dozen with relatively random strangers involved:[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Of those people, one has a wiki with its own notability issues. Even when you're named in the headline[25], you might not get your own BLP on enwiki (doesn't mean you can't be notable for a different wiki of course). Same applies for death threats, dime a dozen, some examples of people who wouldn't be considered notable: [26][27]. I'll address the Corriere della Serra article in my direct reply to you above.ConcurrentState (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ConcurrentState (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It seems that these concerns have already been adressed by other editors. If you wish for any other comments to be added, just ping me and I can do so. GrayStorm(Talk|Contributions) 00:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential forked discussion

I initially hesitated to continue the discussion in the edit request, but I figured it would make it easier to just lift the entire thing into the AfD once the edit request is being processed. ConcurrentState (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2024

Please add the following as a reply to Cunard's recommendation (Special:Diff/1211946233)

There's more to [[WP:RS]] than if an outlet it [[WP:REPUTABLE]]. Looking at the specific article that is to be used as an RS is just as important. [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS]] and [[WP:RSEDITORIAL]] some of the things to keep in mind, as well other RS-related guidelines. Similarly, [[WP:BASIC]] and stuff like [[WP:GNG]] isn't as straightforward as presented. Specifically [[WP:BASIC]] states: {{talkquote|People are presumed {{strong|notable}} if they have received significant coverage in {{strong|multiple published}} {{strong|[[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary sources]]}} that are {{strong|[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable]]}}, {{strong|intellectually independent}} of each other, and {{strong|[[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent of the subject]]}}. * If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. * [[WP:PRIMARY|Primary source]]s may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as [[#People notable for only one event|being notable only for a single event]], or such as those listed in [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]. |source=[[WP:BASIC]]}} This means that at best a presumption is created (same applies for[[WP:GNG]]), but there are also exclusionary criteria in [[WP:NOT]]. You did bring some good sources, however. No. 1 is genuinely great and might be the best one I've seen so far. No. 2 seems pretty good as well. No. 6 might've been great if it still existed. The archive link doesn't provide enough access to properly asses it, and it has been removed from the FP's website. I was unable to locate it in the e-paper archives of FP, which suggests it never made it to a hard copy. But if you could take a look as well with the same tools you used for No. 1, that would be great. No. 8 seems to be from an outlet that some editors are uncomfortable with, per the perennial list in [[WP:RSPSS]]. I'm not familiar with that outlet, so I can't say either way if it's reliable or not. The rest (i.e., 3-5, 7,9) have the issues mentioned elsewhere, where it seems the airline is the topic. There's also the issue that they don't seem to be intellectually independent as required under [[WP:BASIC]] and instead derivatives of the primary source, that being Cahill's own videos (which has [[WP:BLPSELFPUB]] implications). The note in [[WP:BASIC]] clarifies intellectual independence as such: {{Talkquote| Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing their notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.}} Circling back to [[WP:NOT]] I see some issues with regard to [[WP:NOTNEWS]] (2nd clause) and [[WP:NOTWHOSWHO]]. Either way, it's going to be pretty challenging to create a BLP article that meets [[WP:BLP]] and [[MOS:BLP]] with the small number of reliable sources currently available, especially if we're aiming for more than a stub. Which will probably lead to future AfDs. So for now I maintain my recommendation to delete, it seems it's just [[WP:TOOSOON]] and that Cahill's contributions are better served on the individual airline articles. That said, if we do end up keeping it, then I strongly support @[[User:Bearian|Bearian]]'s suggestion to start from scratch.

Thanks in advance! ConcurrentState (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrayStorm, could you add the comment above? ConcurrentState (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done GrayStorm(Talk|Contributions) 03:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was fast. Thanks! ConcurrentState (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Josh_Cahill&oldid=1212091104"