Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robyn Semien

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 no consensus. Sandstein 16:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Semien

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

Delete. Inadequately sourced WP:BLP of a radio producer. While there are claims here that probably would be enough to earn her an article if she could be sourced over WP:GNG for them, nothing here gives her an automatic pass of any subject-specific inclusion criterion -- and while it looks well sourced on the surface, every last one of the 15 citations here either (a) namechecks her existence in the process of failing to be about her, or (b) sources a tangential fact about the show she produces while entirely failing to even namecheck her existence at all. Which means none of the sources here get her over WP:GNG, because not even one of them is substantively about her. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So, I created the entry because I believe the subject is wiki-notable, but to summarize my reasons for that view:

A Peabody is the highest award in the field (often compared as audio equivalent to a Pulitzer for print journalism), qualifying for WP:ANYBIO.
WP:CREATIVE #3, "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work" that has been "the primary subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There's no shortage of reviews and articles about the Harper High episode (a two-hour radio doc); she's named as a co-creator for the credits and on the many awards it's won; and in addition to the awards, a piece that draws action by the President and First Lady of the United States seems pretty squarely "significant" to me.
But all the same, here are additional available sources that haven't been incorporated into the entry yet. I consider the sum more than adequate for WP:BASIC.

More awards she's won:

More secondary source coverage describing other aspects of her life:

More secondary source notice for her radio work:

So the entry seems wiki-notable to me by several standards, though of course only one need be satisfied; and I don't see any exclusion criteria that would apply, so, keep. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Peabody would support her notability if she had won it as an individual; it does not support her notability if you have to combine sources which say the show won a Peabody, but which fail to specifically single out her name in conjunction with that achievement, with the show's own self-published primary source content about itself to prove that she was involved in creating the content that won the award. None of those other awards are ones that confer an automatic WP:JOURNALIST pass on a person who isn't the subject of enough reliable source coverage to satisfy GNG. Those articles covering "other aspects of her life" aren't covering notable aspects of her life: getting covered in the real estate section for buying a condo doesn't make a person encyclopedically notable, owning an independent wine store doesn't make a person encyclopedically notable, and the "Laker Girl" article just namechecks her existence a single time in an article that isn't about her. And exactly zero of those "secondary source notice for her radio work" are in reliable sources; every last one of them is either a blog or a press release on the website of an organization, not a media outlet that can support notability. What you're missing is that there's a big difference between sources which verify that she exists, and sources which can validly confer notability — and you have yet to show even one source which does the latter. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have some disagreements with the analysis here, but for perhaps the simplest way to advance the discussion, here's the Peabody's announcement specifically naming her (as co-producer, which I've updated in the entry). I may come back later and expand on other questions, but for now I'd rather work on improving the entry; and perhaps others will weigh in in the meantime, which I think would be useful. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's still a primary source. What makes an award notable enough to confer a notability pass on a winner of that award is the existence of media coverage about the award win, not just the award's own self-published website about itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (somewhat weak keep) Important journalist and producer although (admittedly) there is not much in-depth reporting on her, although she's clearly done great work. She is getting attention because of the wine store -- a second source of references so that puts her in the keep column for me, with sources like this one and this one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched like crazy and there are exactly Zero reliable secondary sources which present some significant coverage about the subject. Half of references in the article have absolutely no reference to the subject. I'm not convinced that the Peabody award grants automatic notability considering the number of people who are credited. Tangential coverage coatracked to articles about something else do not add up to notability. The coverage about the wine store is essentially about an independent wine store with a mention of the owners - nothing indicates that the store is notable. Overall I don't see any references talking about the subject and their work. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For context on the Peabody: I searched the AfD archives to see how the award was usually treated in bios before I ivoted, and I could only find four AfDs with anyone promoting the idea the Peabody did not confer notability. In two the subject had not been named as a winner, but rather the network the person worked for had won: Margie Nichols and Nicholas Claxton. The other two were subjects who had not won a Peabody but only been nominated: JC Lamkin and Seema Jilani. By contrast, here is a Peabody-related bio AfD where the nominator said, "If we can verify his share in a Peabody, I'll gladly withdraw" and indeed the bio was kept (in fact there were no delete voters at all): Jeffrey Bushell. So it seems to me it would be a novel interpretation of the Peabody's significance not to count being explicitly named as a winner for WP:BIO, and I am quite reluctant to break fresh ground by counting achievements by women for less than we have previously counted the same achievement by men. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we focus on this bio, it has 2 problems.

1. A lack of significant coverage failing GNG. And

2. A lack of secondary sources about the subject's association with the peabody award.

Jeffrey Bushell was 6 years ago, it had 1 weak keep and 1 keep and overall lacked participation. Also consensus can change. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia (9th nomination) for an example). The essential reason for coverage is WP:WHYN that we should be able to write a good article on the subject and this significant coverage is missing here. Also, no one is suggesting that we are counting achievements by women for less than we have previously counted the same achievement by men. If WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, we nominate it for deletion per WP:SEWAGE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's still too closely focused with naming other people or other entities, and that's not what's needed for guaranteeing an acceptable article; this would then be best mentioned elsewhere instead given she's best known for that. SwisterTwister talk 01:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. The subject is a Peabody Award winner. End of story! Bearian (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Peabody Award winner" is not end of story, if "reliably sourceable as a" isn't in front of it. Bearcat (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Peabody award winner is reliably sourced numerous times. Hmlarson (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.