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. Sandstein 09:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Madison[edit]

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

No reliable third party references for notability . About half are her own writings or shows. The rest are Interviews with her, which do not count as reliable, for the subject can say whatever they please--they are only a PR technique. ., DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is the first time I participate in these discussions, I understand that I can leave my comment here.

You are right in reference 1, which is a production of Madison with which I support the claim that she has a daughter. But when I use the interviews as references, I only use the introduction to each interview, which is the word of the author, not the interviewee's - for example, references 2, 3, 4, 9, 10 -. They are reliable media and besides supporting the affirmations of the article, I understand that they serve to demonstrate that she has a wide media coverage.

Reference 5 is a third party that supports the claim that she interviewed Amanda Bynes.

References 6 and 7 are videos that support the claim that she interviewed Charlotte Mckinney.

Regarding reference 8, I moved it to the right place. But it is the same case of the interviews mentioned.

Reference 11 is a third party.

Reference 12 is an interview - by quotations - that I used to demonstrate her notability as a producer.

In summary: I have read that interviews are considered primary sources, but I understood that if I use what the author of the interview says, not her, they are useful, and even more if they are reliable media.

Sorry if there is any error in my assessments.--BelleBenny (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

almost always, the introductory section to an interview of this sort is based on a promotional bio submitted from the person being interviewed, orwritten or suggested by the PR agent who arranged fro the interview. It has no more reliability than the blurbs for books on Amazon, which are also written or at least organized by PR agents. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then, about notability, I must understand that it is not enough that those media - which are known and trusted - have decided to interview or talk about Madison? It is true that most of them are interviews, but does not their existence show that the subject is notable? Should I understand that an interview is almost never an independent coverage? For example, does not an interview in People.com have the same value as an article in the same site?

About using the introductions to those interviews, I did it to assert objective facts: what companies did she create, or what programs did she produce. If it is not useful, which other source can I use to corroborate that Madison, for example, has produced a reality show with Kardashian??--BelleBenny (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with DGG on his assessment of the sourcing, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I've added additional references and information to the article. This subject passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Her show Glam Masters (which she is the executive producer of) is a reality beauty competition show on Lifetime that she does with Kim Kardashian. Along with producing a beauty show, the article in the Insider literally has the title (referring to Diana Madison), "Kim Kardashian's makeup artists are so famous that people are fighting to join her glam squad" which I think is an indicator that Madison is extremely notable for her profession. Someone mentioned that interviews don't count to establish notability. There is nothing about interviews on WP:PERSON or WP:N, which are the official guidelines on notability. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument amounts to some combination of a/, that anyone associated with Kim Kardashan is notable c/the executive producer of a show on a famous person is inherently notable. c/headlines saying someone is famous mean that someone is famous--(I note that headlines are not written by the author or the article). d/hyperbolic statements in press releases are to be taken literally. ``

I feel that's a mischaracterization of my vote. My argument is that the subject passes WP:GNG due to significant discussion in secondary sources.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Lonehexagon (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources in the article and offered at this AfD are passing mentions and WP:SPIP, such as interviews, which are not suitable for determining notability. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO based on a review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then, an article in People is useful, but an inteview in People is not useful? Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Interviews I understand that they can not be discarded automatically. Do you suggest that all references are paid or part of an advertising campaign?

Sorry for my comments but I find it difficult to understand.BelleBenny (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjects fails WP:ENT, as the sources cited by the article are for the most part mentions in passing. Note that while Madison is an interviewer, she does not (per WP:NOTINHERITED) derive notability from famous persons she has interviewed.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is clear that an interviewer does not inherit the notability of his interviewee, but in this case, In Touch Weekly and Daily Mail highlight both the interviewee and the interviewer.BelleBenny (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 3 June 2018 (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.