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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Bethany C. Meyers

Bethany C. Meyers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Not notable - references are either connected to the subject of the article or about who they are in a relationship with. Notability is not inherited. Melcous ( talk) 22:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I see two articles from People (magazine) and one from Elle (magazine) that are equally about both of them, and the SpectrumSouth and WellAndGood articles are neither mostly interviews, nor at all about the spouse. -- GRuban ( talk) 23:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per above. Multiple sources are about their fitness career and the articles focusing on their marriage are from equal perspective, not about their spouse's notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 00:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - As previously stated, there are several magazine articles that are about both of them equally, so it appears WP:SIGCOV is met. - Indy beetle ( talk) 09:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The only significant sources in the text are those that refer to news of the couple (i.e. Meyers and Tortorella) rather than the subject alone, e.g. Grazia ( here), Elle ( here), and Advocate ( here). The rest of the sources are on the fringe or contain mostly fluff. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete I agree with Gnome, none of those are independent profiles or establish notability and they’re just fluff. Trillfendi ( talk) 23:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I'm interested by @ The Gnome:'s first argument. Do sources that talk about a couple not provide notability to the constitute individuals? An article talking about a group obviously doesn't enable the notability its providing to be inherited by the individual members. However, we don't have articles on couples - is the notability "lost"? Other issues notwithstanding, I'm inclined to think a reliable source discussing the couple can reasonably be used by both to back their individual articles. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Greetings, Nosebagbear. That's an interesting outlook, if I may say so. If we have a couple of persons who are in a relationship and one of them is already a celebrity (or, at least, a person deserving a Wikipedia article, according to the established criteria) this situation just might actually make it more difficult for the other, non-celeb person to acquire on its own independent Wikinotability -and an article- what with WP:INHERITED and all that. Are we in a context where two persons of approximately equal notability stand better chances of each having its own article? - The Gnome ( talk) 06:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC) reply

@ The Gnome: - it does at least run the risk in the sense of "this person is included because of this notable person, it's not actually on them". Certainly in terms of how INHERITED is interpreted in action it runs this risk. Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment while they are certainly notable in relation to their marriage, they are also notable in their own right for their work in the fitness industry. (I realize that interviews are not independent sources and that some of the following links are interviews, but I believe that some of these show notability aside from article detailing their relationship and wedding. At the very least they meet significant coverage.) These Are the Badass Female Trainers You Need to Follow For Endless Fitness Inspiration 5 Ultra-Effective Moves For Your Abs From SLT Instructor Bethany Meyers 7 Nonjudgmental Fitness Apps To Download To Help Achieve Your Exercise Goals [1] QUEER FITNESS INSTRUCTOR BETHANY C. MEYERS ON FINDING YOURSELF, PERSONALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY Bethany C. Meyers: CEO of an Inclusive Empire Bethany Meyers: Movement Expert and Creator of be.come BETHANY C MEYERS BETHANY MEYERS OF SLT- WORKOUT WEDNESDAY Bethany C Meyers On Coping With Jealousy In An Open Relationship Becoming Body Neutral | Bethany Meyers | TEDxBethuneStreetWomen Q&A with Trainer Bethany C. Meyers FIVE MINUTES WITH Bethany Meyers -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 20:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Actually, the collection above simply confirms the dearth of reliable sources showing notability.

Badass is a clickbaiting advertorial from a shopping platform on female fitness trainers among whom Meyers is name dropped; the Bustle piece is about something entirely different, i.e. training apps, where Meyers is mentioned once; then a couple of texts in fringe websites (Spectrum South abnd Make Muse), along with a piece in Negative Underwear's corporate magazine and a piece in Caraa's corporate magazine ('free shipping' advertised in both); a couple of enthusiastic blogs ( here and here), although we should know better; and a YouTube clip ( ditto).

I'm sorry but the notability criterion is not satisfied. And bringing in this caseload of "citation" overkill to cover up the lack of sources is not to be commended. Perhaps some editors take up the case for such an article as if this is an identity politics issue. It is not - and Wikipedia is not the place where we advocate for causes, however worthy. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC) reply

I fail to see where any editor involved in this discussion has made this an issue of idenity politics. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 01:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep, I believe has reliable sources. Alex-h ( talk) 20:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep There is coverage of Meyers as a celebrity fitness instructor, in many mainstream newspapers, through Associated Press (I have added some references). Together with the Elle and Marie-Claire articles, which are about both of them equally, that is enough coverage in mainstream media to meet WP:BASIC. But I don't see why the Gay Star News and PinkNews, which also have coverage about Meyers, would not be considered reliable sources - they both have Wikipedia articles which don't say otherwise. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 02:43, 17 January 2019 (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.