Talk:Silky Nutmeg Ganache/Archive 1

Archive 1

Images

There are images at commons: Category:Silky Nutmeg Ganache. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Notability?

Given Onel5969's redirection, I'll ask editors here, is Silky Nutmeg Ganache notable enough for a standalone article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Another Believer, I think that based on the sources currently cited, notability independent of RuPaul season 11 has not been demonstrated. The only source that isn't directly about the show is the New York piece, which is a Top X list, which generally don't contribute much toward notability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

All the in-depth sources are only tangential to their appearance on the show. Without that appearance, there is zero notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969, Except now she is doing other things as well, such as the series mentioned here. BTW, thanks for letting this discussion take place instead of immediately reverting. Hopefully a few more editors can weigh in over the next few days. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Sorry, right as I was typing out the last comment above, you redirected again. Can you please just wait a couple days? I'm not insisting she is notable, but I'd like a few editors to agree before redirecting again. Please be patient, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Another Believer - No, please self-revert. If not, I'll be forced to take it to AfD. The talk page will still be here, and if other editors have a different viewpoint, that is the time to recreate the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think at this point, opening an AfD is the best way for this to get a fair hearing if we're still in disagreement. The discussion will attract more participation there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969, I will in 48 hours. There's really no need for AfD, especially when the redirect serves a purpose. I've already posted a note at WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race for feedback, so if you don't mind, I'd just like to wait a couple days. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Fine, whatever. It's ridiculous editors can't have 48 hours to discuss this. You're being unreasonable, but I'm not going to force editors to waste time at AfD. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Most recent article

@Onel5969: I don't know why you're so adamant about redirecting, but where can we get editors to decide if the most recent article expansion demonstrates notability? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Because the subject isn't notable. Simple as that. Nothing has changed since the above discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969, Says just you and no one else gets to decide? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: What do you think about this version re: notability? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Back in July, I felt this article was a clear case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:1E, and I agreed with redirecting it. The newest version, however, contained information from WP:RS about the subject's pageant career, nightlife performances, a live appearance with Iggy Azalea, a guest spot on Germany's Next Topmodel, an appearance in a Lizzo music video, a starring role in two web series, and a post-Drag Race tour. The WP:1E criteria pretty clearly do not apply any longer. I'm a bit puzzled as to why the present version was redirected without recognition of the changes the article has undergone. Armadillopteryx^talk 16:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm still leaning not-notable. This is in my opinion a less clear-cut case than it was back in July due to the additional television and song credits. However, when looking at the coverage attached to the article, not much has changed. The coverage of Silky in connection to Germany's Next Top Model is trivial, the Lizzo spot features several RuPaul's contestants and it doesn't seem like we have more than a mere mention about Silky's participation in particular, and the best coverage that we have of her collaboration with Iggy Azalea is this piece which is essentially just Silky promoting her (then-upcoming) collaboration. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  Rosguill, And the sources below don't help demonstrate notability? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  The additional coverage added today in the below section appears to just be Silky giving her perspective of her experiences, not independent coverage. I think that if there was even one more example of solid, secondary coverage in a reliable source, the veritable mountain of interview coverage would contribute to notability. But on its own, without such secondary coverage, it doesn't help us write a neutral and verifiable article, which is ultimately what notability guidelines are there for. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  And remember that interviews are primary sources. And primary sources can never be used to demonstrate notability. That's WP policy. I happen to agree with Rosguill above that at a certain point the amount of interviews should show notability, however that's not policy. If we want to change policy, that's all fine and dandy, but until we do, we should stick to it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  Onel5969, I'm not sure that's an accurate description of current policy and guidelines. WP:N doesn't mention interviews at all; WP:OR has a footnote saying [examples of primary sources include]...editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews, followed by several literal definitions of "primary source" from a few different sources, most of which do include interviews. I'm aware that AfD's are often decided with hardline statements that interviews never contribute to notability, but I don't think that's actually an accurate reflection of policy and guidelines as currently written.

  Personally, I think it should come down to the nature of the interview content. If the interview is largely just letting the subject speak freely (as is the case in the examples cited here), then I think it's clearly primary. If the interview includes push-back from the interviewer and actually addresses significant and controversial aspects about the subject, or if it's an article that includes independent insight while also using significant amounts of quotes form an interview, then I think a case can be made that the sourcing is secondary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)