Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arden Leigh

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arden Leigh

[edit]
Arden Leigh (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)

Individual lacks secondary sources. Claim to fame is a single book. Appears to be NN and fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment from admin whose PROD was refunded There appear to be some GBook hits that are not related. Someone removed a lot of not-so-great-sources that I've restored. Don't believe she meets WP:GNG but there are a lot of G hits to sift. Dlohcierekim 13:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the one who cleaned up the sources the first time around. The problem with them is that although there looks like there's a lot at first glance, the sources are all pretty much trivial at best. Many of them could be considered primary sources. Here's my rundown of the sources:
Sources
  1. [1] This is a notification of an upcoming event. Even if it wasn't, Leigh writes for the magazine and anything from them would be a primary source.
  2. [2] A nn blog.
  3. [3] An article that Leigh wrote for the website, so a primary source.
  4. [4] A book review, but by a website that Leigh writes for, so primary.
  5. [5] This isn't about Leigh specifically, but about several pickup artists that give their advice on sex and dating. It's trivial at best and could be considered a primary source in some aspects since the article is an advice-type one. Not something that could really give notability, in any case.
  6. [6] This is an interview on a news show and is more of the "let's give out dating advice" type of thing. Only Leigh is featured, but at the same time it runs the risk of being seen as a primary source in some ways since she's giving out advice. I'd argue that this might be usable in some ways, but it's not something I'd personally use as a RS.
  7. [7] This a brief mention in relation to a photo of a Penthouse Pet. It's trivial at best.
  8. [8] This is The Sun, which is pretty much a tabloid paper. We can't really use it as a reliable source when you get down to it.
  9. [9] Another advice column-esque article where many pickup artists are featured and mentioned giving advice. Leigh isn't featured in-depth, so this is trivial at best.
  10. [10] This didn't come up for me initially, but a cached version showed me that this is ultimately a nn blog entry.
  11. [11] Trivial mention of her being at an event, which cannot show notability.
  12. [12] I'm actually unsure as to whether or not this would ultimately count as a blog or not when you get down to it. It does have an editorial board, in any case. However even if we consider that Bustle is a website that could count as a RS, this is ultimately not something that would really give notability. There's no in-depth coverage of Leigh, just criticism of one of the advice column-esque articles that she participated in with other people.
  13. [13] This is her official profile for Auziliary, so it's not usable to give notability.
  14. [14] Non-notable blog entry.
In the end there just isn't anything out there to give Leigh enough notability to merit her own article at this point in time. The only one that's remotely usable is the news show interview and that isn't enough to give notability. As far as the other links go, even if we consider the advice column type articles as non-primary, they're more trivial mentions than anything else and no amount of trivial mentions are enough to give notability. I just can't find enough to show that Leigh is particularly noteworthy in her field either, so we can't really keep her on the "groundbreakign within their field" category either. I don't want to go "other stuff does/doesn't exist", but we couldn't establish notability for several of the people involved in The Game, so it's unlikely that we could justify enough notability for Leigh based upon these sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)👍 Like[reply]
CommentEnough "trivial" coverage can add up to notability, however, I don't think so in this case. Trivial or primary as they may be, we can hash it out here. We need more significant coverage, and coverage must cover all of the content. Dlohcierekim 13:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually unusual for a first-time author (or any author) to get this much mainstream TV exposure. It's because of the titillating headline of course "female pick up artist", perfect for TV audience. However I did read in a post about her somewhere that she is more than a gimmick, it is based on feminist philosophy about the "agency" of women to have whatever they want whenever they want, or something (forget the exact academic lingo), so it's more than a gimmick. I think she may actually discuss this in the CBC interview in which she defends pick up artists, material of course which could be included in the article. --Green Cardamom (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Primary? These are reliable sources, independent of the subject, they independently invited her onto the show, independently chose the questions to ask, she has no connection to the TV stations (presumably). Journalistic interviews are usually acceptable as sources in written form, so I assume TV and radio news appearances are as well. It's not the same as if she wrote an article herself when there is a journalist controlling the discussion. Presume there is journalistic integrity since the sources are reliable (TV news shows). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - These are primary sources, interviews typically are considered as primary - regardless of format. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Yes, "Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources," but there is an absence of secondary sources. reddogsix (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • interviews typically are considered as primary - a heuristic position :) My experience is interviews are usable so long as in reliable sources. The reason as stated above, interviews are not controlled by the interviewee they are controlled by the journalist (in this case producer of the show) who have editorial control over everything, it's an original production/episode of the TV show. Some content in the show is original to the subject, but that is true in every news article that includes quotes. It's true there is no original analysis by the journalist (i think - have not listened through them), so it's lacking in that degree which makes it less than perfect as a source, which is why we need more sources other than just interviews. Maybe if I get some time I'll listen through them and see if there is any original analysis by the reporters. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment huge circulation doesn't necessarily make the Sun a reliable source. The other coverage, as noted by some other editors, seems to mostly be buzz about Leigh's book and philosophy, not the woman herself. For that reason, I think an article about the book itself would be more appropriate, per your suggestion above. ~ Boomur [talk] 20:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reliability isn't a Boolean property, though, and the Sun is reasonably reliable in that it does have editorial oversight. I think that circulation does have some impact on notability: we can assume that some significant fraction of the Sun's 2.4M readers read that article. WP:Notability suggests that "fame, importance, or popularity…may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines…". I believe that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and that the coverage in less reliable sources (e.g. blogs, the Sun) and sources which might be considered primary in the context (e.g. CBS, CBC) should be considered as enhancing the acceptability of the subject. Pburka (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arden_Leigh&oldid=1137575298"