Talk:Sue Ieraci

Notability

A page on this topic was deleted in 2014. This is a new page. Sue Ieraci has sufficient notability at this time. I have not discussed this with the user who deleted the page as, sadly, he is deceased. I would be happy for additions to this page, particularly photographs. JulieMay54 (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Book Notability?

@Bilby: what are you talking about with book notability? Sgerbic (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I've fixed that. - Bilby (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

So are you putting this page up for AfD? Sgerbic (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm flagging the issue in the hope that it can be addressed rather than sent to AfD. - Bilby (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that a lot of Bios here on Wikipedia need more content. Do we really need a flag reminding us of our responsibility? The editor that created this page also created another Wikipedia page for another female scientist. You tagged both pages for notability.Sgerbic (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need more content as such - it needs to meet WP:BIO. The second article has more of a case, but this one in particular needs more to establish that it meets the guidelines. - Bilby (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

So I assume you read the editor's note above stating that they felt they proved notability? You think that maybe @JulieMay54: overlooked some citation floating around out there that would satisfy the guidelines? The post here on talk JulieMay54 left was ... what? Sgerbic (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but they were incorrect in their assessment as to whether or not notability was proven. So rather than sending this to AfD, I'm hopping that flagging the article will help find the sources that it needs - possibly, as you say, something that was missed when the article was created. - Bilby (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC):

Hey Sgerbic even though it's been requested here, I cannot get this woman's notability "fixed", that's an impossible task and plainly ridiculous. Either she is or isn't notable - now if Ieraci was a man he would be "presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" as per the rules. CatCafe (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

What coverage do we currently have that is about Sue Ieraci is non-trivial, independent and in reliable sources? That is the problem we have. Being quoted, or writing a letter, or giving a presentation is good, but for notability the coverage has to be about the subject. The only reference that currently meets that is the Croaky one, but one isn't enough on its own. - Bilby (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Can no longer attempt to 'fix' the notability problem you posed. The notability tag's been put there and explicit encouragement was given other editors to run around in circles and try to fix it - with the full knowledge, in your opinion, that Ieraci will never meet notability. And you make no effort to assist the impossible task that has been set. I have no more to contribute here. CatCafe (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

If it proves to be impossible, it may end up being deleted. But I'd rather see it fixed. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything that meets the requirements, either. - Bilby (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No. only impossible by your standards set. I have followed the rule "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", but I and others have been unable to convince the sole critic here. So as efforts based on that rule above have been misspent, I have no more to contribute here as you're encouraging my time to be purposely wasted. CatCafe (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that bit about coverage - it needs to be coverage about Sue Ieraci, not her commenting on a subject. At the moment there are 22 sources. Four are either publications on which she is author or co-author (or lists of the same); seven are quoting her in regard to a topic she is knowledgeable about but not covering her; four are bios either by her or a group she is withand aren't independent; one is to Wikipedia; one is a longer interview about an area she is an expert, but which does not provide any coverage of her; one mentions a paper she co-authored but is not about her; one is a transcript of her appearance before a parliamentary committee; and one is her talking about her presentation; and one is a good source about a presentation she gave and has some coverage of her. That last one is what we need, but we need more than the one. Even if we stretch things, the best we get is one ok and one borderline source, and we really need two good ones.

The reason for tagging the article is to hope that over time a source we can use is found. If it is it fixes the problem. It is much better to ask readers and editors to help than to just send it to AfD and see what happens. Removing the tag just makes it harder to get that assistance. - Bilby (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The task is impossible by Bilby standards - I agree Cat that this person is either notable or not - there isn't an elusive citation hanging around out there currently that can be added to satisfy Bilby. I'm obviously being hounded. Because this tag is on the page, WMC has decided that they would speedly delete the photo that I took and uploaded correctly. They think it is something I took off of Facebook which was the other way around, I put it on Facebook. I filled out the necessary forms telling them that the photo is mine and uploaded correctly but then got the message because this page is tagged with a notability tag they would not deal with the photo permission. The time wasting here on Wikipedia and WikiMedia is enough to make you scream and give up. On and on and on and on with these endless discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes Sgerbic I see the hounding too and this whole silly game here is purposely wasting time. And as you said the notability tag has had consequences in you publishing a photo of yours on wiki commons - that's unfair. I went forward and edited the page in good faith reading the rule that she is notable "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". And also as she has one or two articles that are just written or recorded about her and read the rule "presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" finds her notable. I have no energy to debate under these current circumstances. And the 'notability tag' should be deleted or the whole article sent to AFD by the complainant - one or the other. CatCafe (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The notability tag has nothing to do with the photo - you need to raise that on Commons where that occured. It will be compeltely unrelated to here. Again, though, you need to look for significant coverage of Susan Ieraci. That's what we need to retain the article - not her commenting on issues. Most of what has been added isn't about her, so we'd have trouble at AfD. If we can find that coverage about her we're fine. - Bilby (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't assume you know what's in the correspondence between Sgerbic and WMC about her photo, you're either out of line or have accessed her messages. And also please do not direct me what to do after I had said I had no more to contribute here, by directing me "you need to look for significant coverage". I have great concerns with the 'hounding' issues that have been raised. CatCafe (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Now we're in conspiracy theory territory - no, I have not been accessing anyone's messages. Commons processes are independent of en.wiki, and it seems incredibly unlikely that an image would be removed or kept based on a notability tag over here. - Bilby (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is the email I received from Permissions After I had filled out the additional form explaining that the image is indeed mine. "I've seen the notability of the main article is under discussion. In that case, we prefer to wait till notabilty of the article is set before to proceed with the permission of the file, because if article is deleted, the file can be also deleted, even with an OTRS permission (this procedure is only for copyrights, not to set notability, avoid publicity, etc)."Yours sincerely, Valeria Domínguez -- and now the photo has been deleted. Sgerbic (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That's an unusual process - I think they stuffed up pretty seriously there. Upload it to en.wiki and you can avoid the problem - it doesn't have to go to Commons. - Bilby (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sue Ieraci 2019.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources

Currently, the bulk of the sources being used are either by Ieraci, by an organisation which she is closely connected to, or quote being used as a primary source for claims about what she has stated. We need more secondary sources to establish the content. - Bilby (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

CatCafe, I can give a breakdown of teh sources if that would help, but at the moment well over two thirds of the sources are being used as primary. It would be best to use more secondary sources. This isn't something that relates to notability - I retain my concerns there, but that's not the issue - but it is something we need to address at some point. - Bilby (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, as issues of stalking behaviour have been raised by others elsewhere, I will not respond to your argument that over 2/3 of the sources are primary. Thank you in advance for your understanding. CatCafe (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I haven't made an issue of the personal attacks - I understand the need to vent - but at some point you may need to rethink your approach. - Bilby (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Your recent edits are a good start, but just in case someone wants to tackle this in the future:

• Primary sources by the subject: [1][2][3][4]
• Primary sources by an organisation the subject spoke to or works with: [5][6][7]
• Raw search engine results: [8][9][10]
• Short descriptions typically provided by the speaker or author: [11][12][13]
• Sources used as primary sources for statements about subjects she has been quoted on: [14][15][16][17][18]

It isn't a massive priority, but over time it would be better if some of these are replaced with secondary sources. - Bilby (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)