Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Shira Teitel

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 keep. Cerebellum (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Shira Teitel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

does not meet standard of notability Horsewhipser (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closure comment - I originally closed as Speedy Keep due to the noms rationale (I believed it was more or less WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE) however I was asked by an admin to reopen so am reopening and relisting, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer rationale: The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard. A handful of promotional articles appearing around the same time, and tied directly to a book release, in my opinion, straddles the line of notability, but does not cross it. All other sources, such as author pages on Al Jazeera or Popular Science are clearly self-published. Horsewhipser (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of level of coverage needed to pass general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to generate discussion on article's notability regarding the following points from Notability (People):

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

- Does not meet this standard, no sources supporting.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

- Does not meet this standard, no sources supporting

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

- Although this person has written a book, it is not the subject of an independent or notable work, nor is it used as support or citation anywhere.

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

- Does not meet this standard, no sources supporting.

Horsewhipser (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Horsewhipser you created your account especially for the purpose of nominating the page for deletion? Just curious. Avaya1 (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya1 I have contributed without an account for two years but you cannot nominate a page for deletion without one. Now that it exists I will continue editing from this account.Horsewhipser (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She has a secondary source profile written about her in Australia's oldest newspaper, The Sydney Morning Herald.[1]. She has a secondary source biographical interview in Popular Science,[2] and an article written about her in Cosmos Magazine.[3] She has a book published by Bloomsbury Publishing,[4] reviewed in major newspapers. She is one of the main hosts on Discovery Channel's DNews. She fulfils the criteria for notability for an article and has clear secondary source biographic coverage in notable sources (Sydney Morning Herald, Popular Science, Cosmos Magazine). Avaya1 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya1 Thank you for responding. The timing of these three biographical sources are appear to be based on publicist effort, not general notability. Book releases are often timed with article releases like this, and the lack of notable coverage beyond the publication of her book is suspect. Additionally, the "Discovery Channel's DNews", which is a YouTube channel, does not appear to be notable enough for even its own page, although that is open for future draft and debate. In my opinion, this is a non-notable author being promoted by their publisher, which is not appropriate for a stand-alone page. I would Suggest merging with "Discovery Channel's DNews" perhaps, but that page does not (yet) exist. Horsewhipser (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source articles, although they involve or are about her book, were not published at the same time, but are spread over a year. And the fact she has such interviews and profiles written in notable secondary sources, makes her more notable in terms of secondary sources than many other journalists who have pages on wikipedia. So does having a book published by Bloombury, which is the reason she got such secondary source coverage. Avaya1 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having one book published does not appear to meet the standard of notability. Additionally, the dates of the three articles are January 13th, 2016, July 7th, 2016, and July 9th, 2016. The first comes the day after the publication of the book, according to Amazon.com [5]. The next two are only two days apart. She may have several secondary sources, but as mentioned before, they show signs of book-related publicity rather than general notability. If there were alternative independent sources of coverage, that would help the notability argument. Additionally, I cannot find pages for anyone at her level of notability at the Discovery Channel, such as the other host in the source provided, which would lead me to believe it is a non-notable role. Horsewhipser (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's been one of the main hosts of DNews in the past (last year she was one of their most regular presenters). And your argument about the timing of secondary sources is pure WP:OR. There is coverage in notable secondary sources and that's that. Avaya1 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well and good, but why would a host of something that is not itself notable, be notable? And I struggle to see the significance of a single book being notable as well. Simply put, this person may have secondary sources, but altogether does not meet the Wikipedia standard, as detailed in WP:BIO. Horsewhipser (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [6], [7], [8], [9]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP The Amy_Shira_Teitel article clearly meets General notability guideline and WP:PEOPLE with reliable sources by Wikipedia standards finding her significantly interesting to write about over time. Also, the number of times that she is quoted in the media over 5 years makes it clear that her book published in 2016 is not a flash in the pan (one time lucky break) but that their is a general interest in her writing. Additionally, comment about the media coverage of her book being promoted by a publicist is a red herring. The media picks and chooses which people to profile as books are released. This selection process works hand in hand with Wikipedia policy to let these secondary sources fact check and gauge whether a topic is of significant interest to have a standalone Wikipedia article. The bottomline is that the media has written about and quoted Amy Shira Teitel with depth and frequency to show that she is "worthy of notice" and "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have found more sources and some reviews of her work, which I added directly to the article. Passes GNG and NAUTHOR with reviews of her work. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:57, 19 December 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.