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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bigpencils (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Fallenbaum[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Nina Fallenbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not seem to meet WP:GNG and WP:RS. Reference 1 is written by the subject, Reference 2 is a broken link with no results on archive, References 3 is closely affiliated/employer of the subject, Reference 4 does not mention the subject and no results turn up when investigating, and Reference 5 was written by the subject. It does not look like there are any references for subject's notability. Searching through google scholar, books, etc does not seem to give any results for notability. Bigpencils (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bigpencils (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate your analysis, but I disagree with some of your points. The Berkeley Food Institute is academic because it is part of the University of California, and while its description of Ichikawa cannot be used for notability, it can support content, per WP:BASIC, and her BFI bio outlines past work and education as a policy expert, including at UC Berkeley, as a Fellow at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and her MA in International Relations/Food Policy. Per the WP:PROF guideline, "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area," and I appreciate your reference to this guideline as a rationale, because my interpretation of how this criteria relates to notability is informed by the WP:INTERVIEW essay, which states, "The material provided by the interviewee may be [...] secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported." My interpretation is when an independent and reliable source interviews someone as an expert, this is secondary source commentary about expertise that supports the notability of the interviewee as an expert. From this perspective, when Ichikawa is quoted by The Guardian, HuffPost, The New York Times, the NBCBayArea coverage by Melissa Colorado, and Eater, these sources contribute to notability per WP:BASIC when they interview Ichikawa as an expert. Regardless of whether there are sufficient sources to meet the WP:PROF guideline, the non-triviality of Ichikawa's expert opinion supports WP:BASIC, which permits "multiple independent sources [to] be combined to demonstrate notability" - these are not, per footnote 7, "a simple directory entry or a mention in passing," because these are expert opinions.
In addition, with regard to the WP:BIO guideline generally, it states, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be [...] "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life," and my interpretation of this guideline is influenced by the essay Subjective importance, which may be one of Wikipedia's best defenses against implicit or intentional bias and discrimination, even when editors operate in good faith, because the essay notes, "The main point of the notability guideline is to provide objective criteria for inclusion rather than subjective criteria such as importance which depend on an individual's perspective on the subject." The essay also states, "Notability is about having published, non-trivial information (i.e., more than a mere mention) in multiple sources independent of the subject, and the article itself not being the first place to provide the information." For our discussion, I think this applies to the San Francisco Chronicle (SFGate is the website) coverage of Ichikawa's high school activism to establish an Asian American Studies program, as well as the extensive biographical profile of Ichikawa and her family that is included in the San Francisco Chronicle "tiny home" reporting. Per the notability guidelines, it does not appear to be our role to subjectively judge whether this is important enough to be notable, but instead to objectively examine whether sufficient independent and reliable sources have determined Ichikawa to be 'worthy of notice.' I think that even if notability per WP:PROF is borderline, this additional in-depth coverage further supports WP:BASIC notability. Per WP:HEY, I also appreciate your recognition of the improvements to the article - I would not have been able to do it without the coverage of Ichikawa in multiple independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the response. As for WP:PROF, the guideline states "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, 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." Ishikawa has a handful of published quotations from 2015-2021, so I think my point remains that a small number of quotations does not justify notability and thus does not meet notability for WP:PROF. I have not found many (or any) other quotes.
I am new to this, but it does not seem like WP:ESSAYS are guidelines, just suggestions and opinions that a subset of editors may or may not agree with. However, with WP:INTERVIEW, and as context is important, I think the sources fail based off of this test - "Is the main subject of the interview the interviewee's own life or activities (e.g., a film critic interviews a dancer about their upcoming performance) or something else (e.g., a radio host interviews a physician about the advantages of flu shots)?" The Guardian, HuffPost, The New York Times, the NBCBayArea sources seem to fall into the latter category. I also think it is unfair to call these interviews and to use that standard - the subject provided 1-2 sentences in much longer pieces and there are no explicit questions asked. For example, the entirety of Ishikawa's presence in the NBCBayArea piece is "Nina F. Ichikawa agrees. She helps run the Berkeley Food Institute, which studies sustainable food production. "Urban farms are playing a really important role for elders, for low-income families, for immigrants," she said." The section of WP:INTERVIEW about expertise you quote seems to be related to source reliability, not with subject notability. Again, the main subject of these pieces are not Ishikawa, and the articles do not provide any commentary on Ishikawa.
When you are referring to WP:BIO, what you quoted seems very broad/subjective and my understanding is articles still need to follow WP:BASIC subsection criteria. The Subjective importance is interesting, but again is an essay and seems to be dealing with biases associated with keeping articles, not deleting them. I do not think the standard you cite in that essay supersedes the standard of WP:BASIC. I see the San Francisco Chronicle "tiny home" reporting as a human interest reporting, with reliability issues as described in WP:RS/WP:NEWSORG. I appreciate the resources you linked and your explanations. If the article is kept, I agree with your note on the creator's talk page that it should be renamed to Nina Ishikawa. Bigpencils (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The CUESA piece added is sponsored, which does not meet WP:RS/WP:SPONSORED. The KQED reference again barely mentions Ichikawa, like many of the other sources. The entirety of her presence is a photo with a caption, and this sentence - "But here at the Burroughs Family Farm is an outpost of what Nina Ichikawa, director of the Berkeley Food Institute at UC Berkeley, describes as “centers of insurrection” spreading slowly but steadily across the Valley — test cases in how to cope with the instability of climate change." This falls into the same category of WP:PROF and Criterion 7 and WP:INTERVIEW issues I had above. Bigpencils (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a quick note, per the WP:PROF guideline, being quoted in conventional media as an expert is what the criteria appears to require, so these quotes do appear to support her notability. If your reasoning about the length of the quotes was applied to WP:PROF, I'm not sure how the guideline would be workable, given how experts are typically quoted in conventional media. For the frequent appearances Ichikawa has made in national and local media since becoming the Executive Director of the Berkeley Food Institute, if they are not sufficient for WP:PROF, then I think they are sufficient to support WP:BASIC, especially in the context of the additional independent and reliable sources. The sources that quote her as an expert also appear to be secondary sources in that regard, per WP:SECONDARY, because "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event," and every source that quotes Ichikawa for her expert opinion is using their own thinking to make the determination that she is an expert, which bolsters the notability of her expertise as a result. I need more time to respond to some of your other points, but I wanted to at least start with this. Beccaynr (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:PROF Criterion 7, "A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." It seems to me that Ishikawa has a small number of quotations (~7 between 2015 to 2021), and thus falls short of the notability mark. This guidance seems to fit the situation with Ishikawa. Bigpencils (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My point is that the WP:PROF guideline helps show how quotations of an expert, regardless of their length, can support the notability of the expert. The General Notes section of WP:PROF states "It is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of number/quality of publications. The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus," and I think this helps emphasize how differences of opinion over whether WP:PROF is met is distinct from how quotations of an expert can contribute to notability as a general matter, and for the purposes of assessing notability per WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the inclusion of multiple sources where the subject is barely mentioned could be described as WP:PUFFERY, or as put in the essay as a warning sign - "the stilted language resulting when editors stitch together passing references in reliable sources in consecutive sentences to make it appear as if there has been significant independent coverage of the subject". 15:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigpencils (talk • contribs)
Comment The WP:PUFFERY essay warns against using "sources that do not specifically mention the subject," which can create WP:SYNTH problems, and suggests this may happen especially with "non-notable garage bands and college bands," or "individuals who have attained a fleeting celebrity for their involvement in a reality TV show or a highly-publicized brush with the law" or "writers, poets, or other creative individuals." I think this helps support how when the subject is quoted as an academic expert, the sources help establish notability per WP:PROF, and I think by extension, WP:BASIC, particularly due the existence of other coverage in independent and reliable sources that help build encyclopedic and biographical content. To circle back to your concern about the San Francisco Chronicle "tiny home" reporting and WP:RS/WP:NEWSORG, this guideline speaks to general concerns and appears to make a broad statement based on a link to a Salon article about one reporter, and a wikilink that includes the same, and then a print media section that does not suggest that just because there is emotional content that the reliability can be questioned. The WP:NEWSORG guideline does state that "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." The San Francisco Chronicle articles do not appear to be making exceptional claims, nor reporting rumors or reprinting press releases; it further appears to be a well-established news outlet that appears to have a solid reputation, even for what might be subjectively determined to be "human interest" reporting (e.g. What the San Francisco Chronicle hopes to accomplish with its first feature documentary, CJR, 2016). I do think you are correct that my use of WP:INTERVIEW has been a bit misplaced, but I hope I have clarified what I was trying to articulate with my explanation above about WP:SECONDARY. My goal has been to discuss the principles and spirit of the policies and guidelines, per WP:5P5. Beccaynr (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your response. Apologies for not signing my previous post. I believe the section that I highlighted in WP:PUFFERY better describes the list of articles where Ishikawa provides only quotes, and disagree that the essay only has to do with "sources that do not specifically mention the subject" as the opening of the essay says one of the issues is "detailed listings of minor biographical details" but I understand that you disagree. I still think Criterion 7 of WP:PROF, "A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark", almost perfectly describes the quotes in sources and how that it does not mean the subject is notable as an academic, which is what you claim she is. I also think it misses the mark on WP:BASIC based off the 'significant coverage' requirement as there is very little secondary source analysis of the subject (i.e commentary or analysis of Ishikawa) other than the subject's title. I think we have reached an impasse here as I do not think you have rebutted these claims, but I understand you disagree. While I understand what you are saying about the 'tiny homes' piece, I believe WP:NEWSORG takes issue with the editorial process associated with human interest pieces, and the Salon piece is an example of how human interest pieces do not have the same editorial standards. While the piece may make not make exceptional claims, but the question is whether the piece has the same editorial standards as a hard news piece. I would still question whether it meets WP:RS, but other editors can weigh in.
Can you comment on why you included many sources and did not remove any sources that do not seem to meet WP:RS? For example, the CUESA piece you added is sponsored, the Berkeley High Jacket piece you added is a high school newspaper, and the many sources published by Ishikawa or her employer are not independent. In my judgment, it seems like 10 of the 19 sources do not meet WP:RS for those reasons. Bigpencils (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the WP:NEWSORG criteria, The Berkeley High Jacket has published Editorial Policies that include having an adviser who "Is a journalism teacher that serves as a professional role model, motivator, catalyst for ideas and professionalism, and an educational resource [...] Guides the newspaper staff in accordance with approved editorial policy and aids the educational process related to producing the newspaper [and] [...] will offer advice and instruction, following the Code of Ethics for Advisers established by the Journalism Education Association as well as the Canons of Professional Journalism," and there do not seem to be concerns per the other criteria. As to the piece written and sponsored by the non-profit organization CUESA, I think that can be clarified by editing, but per WP:SQUIRREL, I have been busy with other editing projects, so I have not yet given it my full attention. Beccaynr (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, to address some of your initial and ongoing concerns about references to sources affiliated with Ichikawa, per WP:RSPRIMARY, "specific facts may be taken from primary sources," and per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" and that appears to be how these sources are used in the article to help build encyclopedic content. Beccaynr (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added another San Francisco Chronicle reference that quotes Ichikawa, a Refinery29 reference that includes a discussion of her essay in Eating Asian America: A Food Studies Reader, an interview with Ichikawa in the International Examiner that helps add chronological detail to her work with AAPI Food Action, and a link to her writing in Al Jazeera America. Beccaynr (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the Refinery29 piece and International Examiner piece offer good support for WP:GNG as they have significant second source coverage of the subject, and along with previously mentioned sources seem sufficient. I will withdraw the nomination. Thanks for your work on the article. Bigpencils (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As there has been significant work done on the article, here is my analysis of the sources as of revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Fallenbaum&oldid=1006753366:
Overall, there are 23 sources:
  • 8 of which are from non-independent sources which do not contribute to WP:GNG. One fails [[WP:V].
  • 6 in which the subject provides 1-2 sentences which are predominantly quotes, do not address the subject directly and in detail other than her title and employer, do not meet WP:SIGCOV,
  • 2 non-notable articles written by the subject which do not contribute to WP:GNG
  • 1 sponsored piece that does not have editorial oversight, does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
  • 1 non-notable book source where subject wrote 1 essay in a book of 20 essays, no coverage or secondary analysis of book or essay, does not contribute to WP:GNG
  • 1 article from a high school newspaper that does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
  • 1 press release with no editorial standards that does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
  • 2 pieces of local coverage that meet WP:RS and offer any some semblance of WP:SIGCOV that directly address the subject beyond her title and employer. The SF Chronicle article about tiny home living, and the SFGate article about establishing the Multi-Cultural Coalition at Berkeley High School, though it offers no secondary source commentary or analysis on the subject.
  • 1 source from Eater that meets WP:RS and seems to offer WP:SIGCOV of Ishikawa’s family and her grandfather’s experience in internment/concentration camps. Very little secondary source commentary of the subject herself.

As stated previously, Ishikawa provided quotes in 7 sources over the course of 2015 to present. WP:PROF states “Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, 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.” I believe second sentence perfectly describes the subject providing 7 quotes over the course of 6 years. These sources and quotes do not directly and in detail address Ishikawa other than title and employer of the subject - they are about the actual subjects of the article, and thus do not meet WP:SIGCOV required by WP:GNG.

The three ‘best’ articles that meet WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV are from Eater, SF Chronicle and SF Gate though it is questionable how in-depth these articles are about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigpencils (talk • contribs) 22:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not true, please do not lie and poison the well. As you can see from my contribution history, I have voted on a handful of AfD's only in various categories. Please refute the guidelines cited. Bigpencils (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2021 (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.
More