Talk:Bridget Karlin

• Comment: You mention on the AFC helpdesk that the PR pieces are gone as references. Businesswire is a glaring example of a press release. Anything that even smells similar is a press release. Fiddle Faddle 19:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Please let us start with the basics: For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
  This means any press releases are 100% useless to cite anything.
  Youtube is difficult. It is deprecated unless it is demonstrably the person's official channel, and then may only be used to confirm trivial facts Fiddle Faddle 07:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: This draft contains an overabundance of citations to press releases. Most of the other citations are to interviews or self-published articles. These sources are not independent of the article subject, and are not useful to determine notability. The remaining citations are to unreliable sources or trivial mentions and short quotations, which are also not useful. Please replace these references with citations to secondary, independent, reliable sources. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

I find this hard because being the person who runs the entirety of the consumer electronics show is pretty notable, but there are only copies of press releases stating this fact - and it is a fact that Karlin is running CES this year. Unfortunately, any article about CES with Karlin in it refers to her as the CTO of IBM unless it is some version of a press release. I find it hard to believe that wikipedia has decided that makes it not true or not notable... especially since we can't use the CES website to cite it. I just don't understand how a press release makes this information not true, not reliable, or not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyChristineN (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I'm sure nobody said that the information is not true. But Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, especially when establishing notability, where those secondary sources have to be independent of the subject. This is why interviews and press releases would not be sufficient for establishing notability; they are reliant on the primary source's participation. Envision a scenario where a nobody like myself generated some press releases, got them published on sites that don't discriminate about what content they host. If I could then parlay those press releases into a article about myself on Wikipedia, that would be a great win for my vanity. But since Wikipedia's standard for article creation disallows these sites for determining notability, it creates a higher threshold for inclusion, and better protects the encyclopedia from abuse. We prefer independent secondary sources, because presumably once you become a somebody, reputable news outlets will write about you without you having to dangle a carrot in front of them, and that is what being notable is. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

But deciding that the person who runs CES is not notable just because the information is shared in a press release seems wild to me. I get that this is not the normal circumstance and I can see how a press release can be abused, but this is pretty ridiculous.

CES says, "hey here's who's running CES this year" and wikipedia is like, "sorry either you're flat out lying or you don't really know who's on your own executive board because this is a press release, and even so, it doesn't matter who's running CES because we've decided the person running the biggest tech trade show of the year just isn't notable because that information was shared in a press release" even though Bloomberg and many other websites have corroborated the information.

Do you see how this makes absolutely no sense in this case? I can't believe I'm the only one struggling to see how simply stating that someone is on the board is controversial?

Also, it's pretty clear that the primary source of this press release is the consumer technology association and it had nothing to do with Karlin at all. Wouldn't that be considered an independent source? It's simply an organization stating who is in its organization, and it lists the names. It clearly did not involve Karlin's input at all. So wouldn't that really be considered a secondary independent source since it does not come from Karlin and Karlin clearly had no involvement in its release.

Also, wikipedia's rules on press releases say, "Sometimes, but not always, it is possible to locate the original press release used to generate the article." So, doesn't that mean having the original source makes the information more reliable and not regurgitated? And it coming directly from the people who should know who they employ should make it reliable. It also says, "In general, press releases have effusive praise, rather than factual statements." But that's not true in this case. This press release is stating who is on the board and that's it. It's simply stating a fact about who is on the board. It is not produced by Karlin at all, and simply lists her name next to the title the CTA has given her. And that's true and it's notable because the CTA is a notable organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyChristineN (talk • contribs) 01:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

1) Please start signing your posts with four tildes. 2) To answer your Do you see how this makes absolutely no sense in this case? question, no, sorry, I don't. People who run trade shows aren't by default notable. Many people have jobs and nobody's job is especially more important than anybody else's until secondary sources start getting interested in those people. I do worry that you might have a conflict of interest, like a personal relationship with the subject. If that's the case, you shouldn't be editing this article at all, per WP:COI, because people with intrinsic ties to a subject are often unable to approach the issue of subject notability objectively, in a way that uninterested parties are better suited to. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your talk page says to be civil yet you can't extend me the same courtesy? Where's Fiddle Faddle at because I don't want to deal with your rude behavior anymore.KellyChristineN (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. That's factually incorrect. I'm just frustrated with wikipedia's arbitrary rules and constantly being accused of things because I'm trying to understand these arbitrary rules. Also, this is just rude, "2) To answer your Do you see how this makes absolutely no sense in this case?<nowiki> question, no, sorry, I don't." KellyChristineN (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)</KellyChristineN>

I struggle to find where I've been incivil to you, considering I've had two, maybe three interactions with you. But since my interactions seem to be irritating you, I'll bow out and you can deal with the rest of the community. Good luck! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---