Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lea Thau (2nd nomination)

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. So Why 07:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Thau[edit]

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

While this is written differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, the depth and quality of reliably sourcing hasn't actually improved at all. As always, a podcaster is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because primary and affiliated sources verify that she exists — she needs to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage about her to clear WP:GNG, and does not get to primary source herself into a Wikipedia article by having staff profiles on the websites of her own employers. But the few references here that actually count as reliable sources rather than primary ones all just namecheck her existence and still aren't about her to the degree required — they might count as valid sourcing for an article about the podcast, in which Thau could certainly have her name included, but they aren't adequate sourcing to support a biography of her as a standalone topic separately from that. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Moth is a big deal, and programming is widely broadcast on public radio. This is more than just a podcast editor and there is enough outside sourcing; it's more than a Namecheck, IMHO. The question of the program or the individual is sort of hair-splitting, IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 05:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing present in the article is adequate sourcing — every single source here that does anything more than namecheck her existence is either a blog or a primary source, neither of which are classes of sourcing that can assist notability at all. If there's better sourcing available out there about her than this, then bring it on — but exactly zero of the sources present here are doing the job they need to do. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Montanabw. Erin93 (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw's keep argument, which essentially boils down to "exempted from having to have reliable source coverage just because she exists", is not a valid one. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Radiotopia#Strangers (or Strangers (podcast), if it isn't redirected). Determining the subject of coverage is the point of AfD and certainly not hair-splitting... All reliable, secondary sourcing here points to the Strangers podcast as the item of media attention, not its author. (If Thau played an important role in The Moth, it isn't reflected in the sources either.) I don't see enough coverage of even the podcast to warrant its own article, so I've expanded the section at Radiotopia, the parent company. Both the author and podcast article titles should be redirected to the section in which they are covered. They can always split out summary style. czar 18:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is an award-winning producer and radio host. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of adequate reliable source coverage about those facts in media independent of her own web presence in self-published or directly affiliated sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had expanded on Strangers at Radiotopia, but Gamesmaster9 continues to revert the edit and split the content (without attribution, mind you) to a separate article that was then WP:PROD'd. Discussion at Talk:Radiotopia. czar 19:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons listed. There are sufficient references showing coverage, and she is an award winner. Ross-c (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there aren't sufficient references showing coverage, and the only notable award mentioned in the article isn't one that she won in her own right — it's one that the show won after she left it, and she was not named as the awardee. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- affiliated with two notable entities; article seems ok. I deleted some of the 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Affiliated with notable entities" is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Nice Peabody Award. 06:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The Peabody would be nicer and more notability-assisting if it actually had her name on it at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely disconcerting that so many editors are taking promotional copy as fact... (1) The "-winning" construction should be an immediate peacock flag to any WP editor. (2) The Peabody went to The Moth Radio Hour, of which she was once a part, not Thau. If that infers notability on anyone, it infers it on the show, not individual producers, hosts, participants. For what it's worth, she's not even mentioned in the show's long list of Peabody acknowledgments, and I'm finding it very hard to find any source on The Moth's acceptance of the award with Thau's byline of "Peabody Award-winning" used with every introduction of her name, which brings us to... (3) We have Thau's "Peabody Award-winning" claim sourced to Thau's own website. If you want to say that this affiliation is notable—as many have tried to do above—then show a reliable, secondary source that explains the award in relation to Thau. (I.e., still lacking the sources to do justice to the topic.) czar 15:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even without a Peabody, Thau is a seasoned and notable radio producer who's work bringing The Moth to millions of ears has fueled an international live storytelling phenomenon with many Moth-like events all over the globe. (Sidenote regarding the Peabody: Thau had just left The Moth in 2010 when The Moth Radio Hour won the award. In her acceptance speech, Thau's successor accepts the Peabody Award "on behalf of ... The Moth's staff ... both past and present."[1]. This is explained in the 2015 interview with Thau on The Wolf Den.[2]) Morganfitzp (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that those claims are original research, not claims made in our reliable sourcing. czar 00:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most every article and interview with Thau mentions her Peabody. I wonder if frustration around this stems from a feeling that this could be "fake news" and that all these people and organizations could be lying. Public radio is a reputable source on Wikipedia, and that's the sphere that cares about Thau's work. A source like FOXNews isn't going talk about Thau, nor are they going to go to her house to see if there's a Peabody hanging on her wall and then report on it. More important than these minutiae is that Wikipedia is here to provide a more equitable platform for article presentation than one would find in corporate media: Bill O'Reilly gets his page, and Lea Thau gets hers. Our work here is to improve them both. Morganfitzp (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Czar's point about original research was referring to the claim that "her work bringing The Moth to millions of ears has fueled an international live storytelling phenomenon with many Moth-like events all over the globe." That's an unsourced assertion — for one thing, just because something is similar to something else doesn't automatically mean the second one was inspired by the first one, as it's entirely possible that the second person simply had a similar idea without even being aware that the first one existed at all. So one needs reliable sources to explicitly say that The Moth set it all off before we can say it here, because the mere existence of superficially similar things does not prove all by itself that The Moth sparked an international phenomenon.

And as for the Peabody, it has to be sourced to media coverage about the Peabody win itself, explicitly naming Thau as a recipient, to count as a notability claim — it's not enough that it can be referenced to sources in which she's talking about herself, such as interviews or her self-published staff profiles. There is no notability claim that anybody can make that exempts them from having to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG — but there's no evidence that Thau has the depth of reliable source coverage about her that's required. Catherine Burns getting a Peabody and accepting it on behalf of the podcast's past and present staff is not the same thing as Thau winning a Peabody. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the logic's obvious next step: If Thau being on staff of The Moth Radio Hour prior to its Peabody means notability (which it doesn't, by any stretch of the notability guidelines), then why wouldn't the rest of the staff also be Peabody Award-winning and thus "notable"? And that interviews introduce individuals with their preferred bio is not an endorsement or a reliable vetting of those facts. No one contests that The Moth, if not its additional radio show, influenced storytelling in the US—I'm sure there are sources for that—but WP has a saying, "notability is not inherited": the show won the award and the show had the influence, not the individual producers/performers unless reliable, secondary sources discuss someone's specific influence. If reliable, secondary sources do not discuss Thau's role in specific depth, then her relation with The Moth should be covered in The Moth's article (n.b. it doesn't even mention her currently...) czar 17:27, 19 August 2017 (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.