Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Trimble (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 No consensus. This is clearly a marginal case with arguments both for and against deleting the article, with no side clearly having the upper hand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Gail Trimble

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gail Trimble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The main publications mentioned on the page are an unpublished book (which has been such for 13 years) and contributions to the OCD (an encyclopedia with 100s of contributors). She does not hold a named professorship or similar. The TV and radio appearances are routine. The other possible basis for notability is an appearance on University Challenge, which is WP:BLP1E. Previous deletion discussions have noted the BLP1E point, but that 1E seems to have seemed more significant at the time; it is now very obscure (she is currently listed on the University Challenge page as notable on account of her status as an academic... but as stated, she doesn't meet WP's standard for academic notability). Furius (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (academics) - specific criterion #5.b addresses named chairs; this notability provision only applies to full professors. Dr. Trimble is an associate professor. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Radio, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Her two appearances on heavyweight radio show In Our Time contribute to notability under #7 of WP:NPROF, and the University Challenge coverage continued well beyond the one event, with references like this and this (paywalled, can't read in full) showing that she received ongoing coverage. Classicists publish slowly, by the nature of their field. PamD 09:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Criterion 7 of NPROF: "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" which may be met if "the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." OR "the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study." When one of the options is to have authored several books, I don't think appearing as one of three speakers on a 45-minute radio show with over 1,000 episodes reaches this threshold. "Classicists publish slowly" does not exclude them from notability requirements. Not to have published a book 13 years after the doctorate is quite extraordinary.
    As for the coverage that you mention, this is still part of that one event - it could all be covered in University Challenge 2008–09 and University Challenge, which would also allow it to be better placed in context. Furius (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cherwell is the student newspaper of her alma mater; per consensus such papers are not wiki-independent of their schools and so do not count towards notability any more than alumni newsletters would. The extent of her mention there is just one clause in one sentence so definitely doesn't demonstrate SUSTAINED coverage anyway. The Telegraph piece has just 2ish sentences on her directly so doesn't count either. NPROF C7 requires far more widespread and frequent instances of serving as an expert in lay media. JoelleJay (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While her academic career seems only marginally notable, and individual quiz show appearances would not seem to be, she is clearly not notable for "one event", but seems to have been a regular panelist on two season-long programs, as well as a guest panelist on various quiz and academic programs on both television and radio. Her academic posts in addition to this seem to me to be enough to establish notability. This is not someone who's only known for one thing, but for a number of different things, several of which have brought her to public attention, as well as establishing at least an arguable degree of academic notability; it does not seem reasonable to assert that she is not notable solely because none of the individual things she's done might be sufficiently notable to justify an article by themselves. P Aculeius (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BLP1E. Wealth of coverage from University Challenge, not a low-profile individual. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hameltion, BLP1E doesn't mean an individual can be notable for a single event if they are non-low-profile; WP:SUSTAINED applies to all pages so there would have to be demonstrable coverage over a wider period that does not just regurgitate the same content generated at the time of the event. BLP1E is mostly meant to decide whether an article should be made on a person or on the event associated with them when BOTH would be valid pages, and since "Gail Trimble's appearance on UC" is clearly not notable as an event the "low-profile" BLP1E criterion is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, but I see sustained coverage over the years in The Times (cumulatively more than mentions), BBC, and student newspapers (for what those may be worth). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing mentions don't contribute to NBASIC at all, though, no matter how many of them there are. They are not cumulative. And student newspapers are explicitly excluded from counting toward notability. The BBC article doesn't provide any further coverage of her, it just repeats what was said at the time. Lowering our thresholds for notability to include "single event + some later passing mentions" would mean thousands of reality show contestants would be eligible for articles. But we just don't do that, even for many of the million-dollar winners of top reality shows like Survivor -- see the uncontroversial deletions/redirections of Tina Wesson (won the second season of Survivor and got to top 4 in 27th season; sourcing included [1][2] along with contemporary coverage of seasons 2 and 27), Brian Heidik (won 5th season, also acted in multiple TV shows, non-contemporary coverage includes discussion on several pages in a book), Chris Daugherty (won season 9, non-contemporary coverage includes an academic work, a profile 8 years later, a story run in WaPo about him malingering, etc.), Bob Crowley (oldest winner), and on and on (and that's not even including all the "Where are they now?" pieces that provide lengthy blurbs). What makes the coverage of a college quiz show contestant so much more important to document? It's not like she's the only person in reality TV who went on to become a professor. As her claim to notability is entirely dependent on her UC appearances, having a policy-compliant WP article (i.e. focused on what is covered in IRS sources) will just be overemphasizing a part of her life that probably is only a minor aspect to her at this point. JoelleJay (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero evidence of notability through NPROF (appearing on IOT is not unusual for academics in the area and would be considered one piece of evidence towards C7, but the criterion requires much more widespread acknowledgement of expertise). The coverage of her UC appearance is not sufficient to overcome the need for WP:SUSTAINED coverage; the only independent pieces published after 2009 are a BBC "Where are they now" blurb on 10 April 2017 and a clearly non-intellectually-independent derivative blurb in another "Where are they now" series in the Telegraph. Neither provides any additional commentary on her than what was said in 2009, so they do not have any weight. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument seems to be that she's only notable for appearing on a television program in 2009; but this wasn't a one-time appearance; rather it was a season-long one as her team was the winner of that series. She also appeared as part of another team on another program in 2017 and 2018, and made other appearances—some of them academic or scholarly, rather than on quiz shows—in 2020, 2021, and 2022, indicating non-trivial expertise in her field. Essentially you're arguing that she can't be notable because none of the individual things she's done are sufficiently notable, but by that logic we'd be eliminating a lot of scholars and academics, to say nothing of entertainers, who may be familiar to the public for a number of minor things, but not for a single major event. That simply isn't a reasonable standard. P Aculeius (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have articles on every single Survivor oder Bachelor contestant, even though those get waaaaaaaaaay more coverage for a longer period of time. This is because they fail SUSTAINED. Appearing on televised quiz shows does not mean anything unless it corresponds to significant secondary independent coverage that extends well beyond the time of those events (and it offers zero weight towards academic notability per NPROF 2c). Essentially you're arguing that she can't be notable because none of the individual things she's done are sufficiently notable, but by that logic we'd be eliminating a lot of scholars and academics, to say nothing of entertainers, who may be familiar to the public for a number of minor things, but not for a single major event.This is in fact explicitly the standard we have for GNG. It does not matter how important an aspect or event associated with a person is; if the coverage is not significant, independent, secondary, and reliable it does not count towards GNG. It is 100% about the coverage, not about what someone has done. These notability criteria aren't additive; non-significant coverage at some later date can't just be added to SUSTAINED-failing coverage to meet GNG (or even NBASIC), else we would have AfD-proof articles on every reality TV contestant ever. So that leaves the only avenue for notability as NPROF C7, but the requirements are very clear that merely providing an expert opinion occasionally -- even in high-profile venues -- does not equate to a C7 pass. You also cannot combine "halfway to achieving GNG" and "halfway to achieving NPROF C7" to reach notability because the criteria for one is invalid for the other so neither GNG nor NPROF can be met. JoelleJay (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing notability with verifiability. Every fact that makes a topic notable must be verifiable, but the individual facts that go toward demonstrating notability do not each have to be sufficiently notable to justify a stand-alone article. A topic that is the subject of ongoing attention in reliable sources over a period of years will generally be notable, even if it can be argued that none of those items is independently notable. You can't simply kick out each item as insufficiently notable, and then claim that there's nothing to demonstrate notability.
You're quite correct that not every game show contestant is notable—but that's a far cry from claiming that no game show contestants are notable, or that nobody who came to public attention due to participation in a game show is notable. And as several people have pointed out, not only has the subject of this discussion been highly visible across multiple programs over a term of several years, but she's also appeared as a subject-matter expert on scholarly topics on other radio and television programs, in addition to holding an academic position at a very prestigious university, and contributing toward notable works of scholarship. Maybe no one thing she's done is all that notable, but all of these things combined seem sufficient to consider the subject notable. P Aculeius (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Others have cited sustained coverage of the years, and yes, a lot of it is of the "where are they now?" variety, but to my mind the coverage meets the requirements of WP:BASIC and she also has a (yes, marginally) notable academic career. This Guardian article sums it up for me by citing her as "[a]mong the most notable female contestants" on University Challenge. While it's not a straightforward case, I would say keep, for similar reasons to those given by P Aculeius. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to also note that the length of time of her appearance on University Challenge weighed into my decision-making. She received extensive coverage over this time in 2009 that continued in the following years; I don't see this as being a WP:BIO1E oder WP:BLP1E situation. This is not a case where "little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography". Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case then should the article be refocused? Only her academic career, not University challenge is mentioned in the lead, but editors seem to be finding the latter to be the source of her notability. Furius (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; the lead was pretty inadequate really. I've had a stab at expanding it. (Not presupposing the outcome of this discussion, no hard feelings obviously if it the consensus ends up being to delete.) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This interpretation would mean every person on the top two teams of a televised reality program is notable, which is absolutely not the case. Survivor and The Bachelor garner millions more viewers and season-long coverage of individuals than UC, but we do not have articles on every single contestant because they do not overcome the requirements for SUSTAINED. Even the ones that get interviews or become panelists on other shows later on aren't considered notable unless there is substantial secondary coverage accompanying them. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is TOOSOON for passing NPROF or NAUTHOR, her book as 5 citations and her academic career is not yet at a point where she would pass NPROF. She is early career so this may change later. Appearing on a quiz show in 2009 should not make her notable either. --hroest 20:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am basing this on the existence of adequate coverage in reliable secondary sources as a game show contestant and related ongoing activities, not as an academic. There is also a list of potential sources on the article's talk page, including major newspapers and the BBC. While most of the significant coverage has some age, WP:NOTTEMPORARY specifically says that coverage does not need to be ongoing. Also, this is not someone noted for a single event, as her related quiz/gameshow career has been ongoing. I also note that the decision was to keep this article in two prior AfD. Rublamb (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While coverage does not need to be ongoing, it does need to be significant well beyond the time surrounding a single event. What SIGCOV exists past 2009? JoelleJay (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2009 University Challenge coverage involved a series of events, not a single event, and were still being discussed in 2016 [3], in 2017 [4][5], in 2018 [6], in 202 [7], and in 2021 [8]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: based on amount of coverage, subject meets WP:BASIC criteria, as it states that multiple independent citations can be combined to show notability. Subject also possibly meets WP:ENT due to being on multiple TV game shows.Royal88888 (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per arguments of Chocmilk03, Rublamb, and others. She clearly passes WP:BASIC for the University Challenge coverage, her subsequent academic career and media appearences means that she isn't a low profile individual, and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the UC coverage does not pass WP:SUSTAINED and therefore fails NOTNEWS. Should we have articles on every single reality TV contestant just because there is coverage of them during the season they appear in? JoelleJay (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay: WP:SUSTAINED says "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." In this situation, she is evidently not a low-profile individual, both due to her academic career and subsequent appearances on quiz shows. @Jonathan A Jones has cited some of the ongoing news coverage. It's true that some of these mentions are passing, such as [9], but they provide evidence (to my mind) that she continues to be notable.
    I've also been thinking about why we have the notability rules. There's enough significant coverage of Trimble in reliable sources that a whole article can be written, that it isn't based on random gossip, that an article can be fair and balanced and not based on original research or a single source. She is of enduring notability in a way that many reality show contestants aren't. WP:NOTWHOSWHO, but coverage of Trimble goes beyond a single event, in my view. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2009 University Challenge coverage involved a series of events, not a single event, and were still being discussed in 2016 [10], in 2017 [11][12], in 2018 [13], in 2020 [14], and in 2021 [15]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all extremely brief passing mentions. The 2020 mention, for example, is nothing more than a link back to a 2009 article by the same newspaper. Everything to do with it could be covered and contextualised better in University Challenge 2008–09 Furius (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets WP:BASIC with sources presented by Jonathan Jones. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BASIC, WP:SUSTAINED. Note that the examples of "passing mentions" at WP:BIO are ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University"). Other examples of trivial coverage include a simple directory entry, a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot.
    Sufficient sources presented above provide coverage that far surpasses such examples, providing SIGCOV. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. —siroχo 08:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No, this person does not qualify as notable under WP:NPROF. Those TV appearances are not sufficient for other notability. The mentions in a number of those sources do not convey independent notability either. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:29, 15 December 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gail_Trimble_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1190197458"