- 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. Hut 8.5 20:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Alisa Titko
- Alisa Titko ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a journalist, whose only indication of notability is that she recently went "viral" for dissing Manchester as being full of fat and gay people. But that just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has the depth of media coverage about her needed to clear our notability standards for journalists -- to meet WP:GNG, she would need a much wider range of coverage, in a much wider range of contexts than just a blip of public reaction to one inflammatory comment. Bearcat ( talk) 18:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Columnist in the biggest-selling newspaper in Russia. Hence, her columns are read by hundreds of thousands of Russians. I created a stub and I don't speak Russian, so I can't look for more sources about her education, career highlights, etc. But Wikipedia is a collaborative ongoing process, and I'd like to see Russian-speaking Wikipedians expanding the article. There can't not be sources in Russian. Zigzig20s ( talk) 18:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- A person does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because somebody makes an unsourced claim about how many people read the content that she writes for a media outlet — a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of enough content, written by people other than herself, to clear
WP:GNG, and not by being the author of any volume of media content per se. It's entirely possible for a person to write thousands of articles for newspapers, and still not qualify for an article if other people still haven't written any content about her work.
What we have here, as of right now, is a person who got one two-day blip of media reaction to a single ill-advised comment — but that, again, just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has yet attained anything that would make her permanently notable. Sure, Russian language sources could possibly save the day here, but an article does not get an inclusion freebie just because improved sourcing and a stronger claim of notability might become possible — no matter how much improvement might still be needed, even the first version of the article still has to contain stronger evidence of notability right off the top than this has. And we also don't keep articles just because somebody assumes that better sources might exist somewhere — we keep articles only if and when somebody shows firm evidence that better sources do exist somewhere. Bearcat ( talk) 18:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)- This is a pointless discussion. We have to see if Russian-speaking Wikipedians are able to expand the article before this gets deleted.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 19:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, we have to see if Russian-speaking Wikipedians are able to write a solid article before this is allowed to exist in the first place. It's "find the sources needed to properly support an article first and then the article follows", not "write the article first and then see if the sources needed to properly support it might turn up someday".
Bearcat (
talk) 19:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Upon creating this stub, I added three sources saying she is a columnist in the biggest-selling newspaper in Russia. I think that makes her notable. You don't. We'll see if others find more sources. But you need to assume good faith.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Being a columnist for a major newspaper is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself, in the absence of enough
reliable source coverage about her to get her over
WP:GNG for the fact. Even a columnist for
The New York Times is not guaranteed a Wikipedia article, if she's not the subject of any coverage about her by other people. So it's not a question of whether I think that being a columnist makes her notable or not — it's a claim whose notability or non-notability hinges on whether the sourcing for it is good enough or not. What you've shown, however, is three sources which just make her a
WP:BLP1E, because all three exist solely in the context of a single blip of coverage of a single controversial statement — you have not shown sources which support enduring or permanent notability for a journalist. For that, you need to show sources which cover her deeply and broadly in a variety of contexts extending beyond a single one-event blip. And those sources need to be present in the article right off the top, to boot — the fact that it might become possible to add such sources someday is not in and of itself grounds for an article to be kept, because anybody could claim the same thing about anything. So no, the grounds for a keep are not "we will see if others find more sources" — finding enough sources to properly support an article comes first and then the eligibility for an article follows, not vice versa.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- The three references talk about her and are written by other people. You want more. We'll see if we can get more. I am not interested in going around in circles about this. I have nothing to add.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 19:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- The three references make her a
WP:BLP1E, because they all cover her exclusively in the context of a single blip of an incident. Ten thousand more articles about the same single incident still wouldn't get her over GNG, because they would still be in the context of a single incident. To get her over GNG on the basis of media coverage about her, that coverage would have to exist in a variety of contexts not confined to a single incident. And your refusal to hear that part of what I'm saying is the only thing making this discussion "go around in circles" — you're the one making that happen here, not me, because I've pointed out
WP:BLP1E pretty much every time I've commented at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've explained my perspective and you've explained yours. The fact that she writes for Russia's biggest newspaper does not change, whether she went viral or not, especially as this is a stub. You want more, I know, and I have nothing more to add. So no need to reply! Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 20:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- The three references make her a
WP:BLP1E, because they all cover her exclusively in the context of a single blip of an incident. Ten thousand more articles about the same single incident still wouldn't get her over GNG, because they would still be in the context of a single incident. To get her over GNG on the basis of media coverage about her, that coverage would have to exist in a variety of contexts not confined to a single incident. And your refusal to hear that part of what I'm saying is the only thing making this discussion "go around in circles" — you're the one making that happen here, not me, because I've pointed out
WP:BLP1E pretty much every time I've commented at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- The three references talk about her and are written by other people. You want more. We'll see if we can get more. I am not interested in going around in circles about this. I have nothing to add.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 19:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Being a columnist for a major newspaper is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself, in the absence of enough
reliable source coverage about her to get her over
WP:GNG for the fact. Even a columnist for
The New York Times is not guaranteed a Wikipedia article, if she's not the subject of any coverage about her by other people. So it's not a question of whether I think that being a columnist makes her notable or not — it's a claim whose notability or non-notability hinges on whether the sourcing for it is good enough or not. What you've shown, however, is three sources which just make her a
WP:BLP1E, because all three exist solely in the context of a single blip of coverage of a single controversial statement — you have not shown sources which support enduring or permanent notability for a journalist. For that, you need to show sources which cover her deeply and broadly in a variety of contexts extending beyond a single one-event blip. And those sources need to be present in the article right off the top, to boot — the fact that it might become possible to add such sources someday is not in and of itself grounds for an article to be kept, because anybody could claim the same thing about anything. So no, the grounds for a keep are not "we will see if others find more sources" — finding enough sources to properly support an article comes first and then the eligibility for an article follows, not vice versa.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Upon creating this stub, I added three sources saying she is a columnist in the biggest-selling newspaper in Russia. I think that makes her notable. You don't. We'll see if others find more sources. But you need to assume good faith.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, we have to see if Russian-speaking Wikipedians are able to write a solid article before this is allowed to exist in the first place. It's "find the sources needed to properly support an article first and then the article follows", not "write the article first and then see if the sources needed to properly support it might turn up someday".
Bearcat (
talk) 19:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- This is a pointless discussion. We have to see if Russian-speaking Wikipedians are able to expand the article before this gets deleted.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 19:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- A person does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because somebody makes an unsourced claim about how many people read the content that she writes for a media outlet — a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of enough content, written by people other than herself, to clear
WP:GNG, and not by being the author of any volume of media content per se. It's entirely possible for a person to write thousands of articles for newspapers, and still not qualify for an article if other people still haven't written any content about her work.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a lengthy feature article or even a book discussing Titko appears in the future. It is just possible that or or more such sources already exists in Russian, although I rather doubt it. In the absence of such a source's being identified, retaining this article would be putting the cart before the horse. I would note that there may be other articles in which inclusion of the well-sourced content found in this article would be perfectly appropriate. Rivertorch FIRE WATER 20:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Sources. We've established, it seems, that she is notable in Manchester, England. Maybe that should be enough? I tried to find her in Russian wikipedia, however, without success. Maybe someone with better linguistic insights into possible alternative spellings could take a look and see if I'm missing something obvious to a Russian speaker. She does appear in Russian wiki as Алиса Титко as the author of various sources. But no one appears to have given her the dubious honour of her own entry there. Maybe that should be the place to start? Regards Charles01 ( talk) 10:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, sorry. She does not appear to meet WP:GNG as near as I can tell. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage of her, a mini-bio or an interview or that sort of thing. She doesn't have an article in the Russian Wikipedia. She is the author of a few articles that are used as sources there, only a few. She probably is known as a byline to many people, as she writes many articles on a variety of subjects (tending toward human interest) for Komsomolskaya Pravda which of course an extremely high-visibility venue. It's not enough. We don't seem to have enough about her.
- And then beyond that it's a bit of WP:BLP issue. If we had a two-sentence article about how she won an award or got a promotion, that'd be different. But this is arguably negative. Sure she's probably laughing and glad for the publicity, but it's not the sort of thing that a journalist would necessarily want as the one thing that is known about them. So a second reason to delete. Herostratus ( talk) 16:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Request could a Russian speaker please give us her name in Cyrillic, so that we can google for russian sources? Stuartyeates ( talk) 22:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not much of a Russian speaker, but (1) I did study it at school and (2) I already wrote (above), "She does appear in Russian wiki as Алиса Титко ....". If you will have time to google for Russian sources please do it. As you probably know, google treats each of us differently, depending on what we looked at before and / or on what they think we might be persuaded to buy. So you might very well get further than I did with googling in Russian. Success. Charles01 ( talk) 06:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- I should have been more clear. In Russian wikipedia she is identified as the author on several source notes. She does not (unless someone just started one) get her own entry. Charles01 ( talk) 06:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- WP:BIO1E at this point & no ru.wiki article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- 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.