Talk:Tastemade

Article additions

This addition [1] has been reverted twice, but is based on reliable sources and appears to add encyclopedic content to the article:

In 2015, Tastemade hired Julie Nolke to create videos and develop show ideas.

The sources also include information about Tastemade generally, and could be used to support further expansion of the article. The reasons for the reversions in the edit summaries are [2] "rv edit added purely to make an orphan article currently subject to AfD discussion a non-orphan - no reason to mention this person specifically over and above other Tastemade contributors" and [3] "edit added purely to make an orphan article currently subject to AfD discussion a non-orphan - no reason to mention this person specifically over and above other Tastemade contributors". Orphan status is not relevant to notability in an AfD discussion (per WP:ORPHS), and there does not appear to be a sufficient reason to justify the removal of this sourced content from this article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to mention this former employee (now known principally for a viral video) specifically over and above the many other people who have worked for the company, just because of a couple of media mentions several years ago. Ryan Seacrest is obviously notable, however. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Wbcgqbvj, thank you for your reply. As has been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Nolke, a major source of notability for Nolke is her series of videos over the past year, not 'a' viral video, and particularly the multiple independent and reliable sources that cover her both in connection to the videos and other aspects of her career, including at Tastemade. The reason to add information about her to this article is because it is supported by three independent and reliable sources - The Washington Post has five paragraphs of coverage on the development of her career before and at Tastemade, the Los Angeles Times features her in its 3-paragraph lede, and Media in Canada, when reporting on a Tastemade expansion, includes information attributed to a Tastemade rep that only highlights a show that she and a co-star are in. This is sustained coverage from 2015 through 2019, so from my view, this supports how she is sufficiently 'worthy of notice' to be included in the Tastemade article, following a similar sentence about another Tastemade content developer. The article can also be further expanded with information about Tastemade in the links, although she is the only performer featured in all three sources and therefore seems to have the strongest claim for inclusion over and above others due to that level of support. This content is sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertains to the subject of the article, so I request that you agree to its restoration. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Media in Canada is an obscure site aimed at the media industry, not the general public, and that 2019 article gives only a brief mention of the subject in the context of a Tastemade project. The other articles are too brief and too long ago so all in all there isn't the "sustained coverage" in my view. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wbcgqbvj: thank you for your reply. All three sources about Nolke are more recent than the two sources about Ryan Seacrest, and one of those sources is also a one-line mention of his involvement. However, "too long ago" is not a reasonable justification to exclude content in an encyclopedia that is WP:NOTNEWS. The sources about Nolke are from 2015, 2016, and 2019, and are more WP:SUSTAINED over time than the reporting on Seacrest; when the Washington Post reporting is combined with the Los Angeles Times and Media in Canada, there is more substantial reporting on the development of Nolke's career at Tastemade than there currently is available about Seacrest's involvement with the company. The Washington Post offers in-depth coverage, and at minimum it is not 'trivial' in the way that this term is defined in the notability guideline, e.g. at WP:BASIC, footnote 7: Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing [...] that does not discuss the subject in detail. I do not believe that there are reasons to exclude this content pursuant to guidelines or policy; unless there are reasons based on policy or guidelines, I believe that this reliably sourced, neutrally written and pertinent content should be restored. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

References