View text source at Wikipedia

Talk:Georgina Baillie


Notable

[edit]

This subject satisfies WP:GNG and WP:SINGER "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." -

(1) Louder Than War,(interview with Baillie about the Poussez Posse and her backing vocals for Adam Ant)
(2) Evening Standard (Adam Ant live review)
(3) Tampa Bay Times (Adam Ant/Poussez Posse live review).

This is noted in the opening paragraph. Further details on all three published works are included in the article, for which all three are used as references. The prime focus of all three sources is Baillie's music - the Ross/Brand incident is only dealt with either tangentially or not at all, therefore WP:ONEEVENT does not apply. Romomusicfan (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

It would be nice if a free-iimage photo could be found or made for this article. Netherzone (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Received coverage"

[edit]

"She received coverage in some random newspapers". Who cares, why is this important, how on earth is it encyclopaedic? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said in the edit summaries, it's an assertion of notability. The subject matter passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN for receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Without it the article is prone to deletion attempts. Several past versions of the article were deleted or merged due to no assertion of notability - and quite properly too as such sources did not yet exist at the time these earlier versions were created.20:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Notability shouldn't and doesn't need to be asserted by writing "has received coverage", the coverage should speak for itself. Wikipedia is not an advert. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:LEDE as it's right there "The lead should ... explain why the topic is notable."Romomusicfan (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know about that policy. But it appears you're arguing that (one of) the main reason(s) she is famous is simply because she has "received coverage"? I'm not sure she is actually notable in that case, and it appears you're using the lead to demonstrate notability, not explain her notability. Notability is through things they have done in their own life/career, not what others have done/said. She should be notable based on the fact she is a singer or whatever, not because the Tampa Bay Times covered her. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly means Wikipedia Notability and the wikilink on the word Notable in the article makes that clear. WikiNotability is subject to strict definitions laid down in policies such as WP:GNG.Romomusicfan (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing for or against notability here. But the lead is a summary of the person and their life, not for demonstrating notability. "Received coverage" appears to be a demonstration of notability, which completely flies in the face of what the lead is supposed to do. Notability should stand on it's own merit, not because somebody "received coverage". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It states quite clearly in WP:LEDE that the Lede is the place for demonstrating WikiNotability.Romomusicfan (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you imagine the lead for JFK saying "Kennedy received coverage in the Boston Globe and the Irish Times", or the lead for Paul McCartney saying "McCartney received coverage in the NME and the Guardian". No, because that isn't why somebody is notable. Kennedy wasn't famous because the Irish Times reported on him, McCartney isn't famous because The Guardian covered a concert or an album. Baillie isn't/shouldn't be famous simply because The Tampa Bay Times wrote a review or whatever All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing about the words: "has received coverage" that is promotional or self-promotional (an odd accusation), or unencylopedic. WP verifiability is grounded in what reliable sources say in the coverage a person has received in published sources. Verifiability is a key policy of the encyclopedia. With all due respect, ItsKesha, your argument that Baillie isn't/shouldn't be famous simply because The Tampa Bay Times wrote a review or whatever does not have merit. BTW, according to the MOS, it's perfectly OK to have citations in the lead. MOS:LEAD states: Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Not sure why you keep removing sourced content and the associated references other than you don't seem to like the wording. The content is also found in the body of the article. Please refrain from continuing to remove this content, as it's becoming a bit of a slow edit war. This is unnecessary. Consensus is to leave it as it was in the stable version before your bold change. If you simply do not like the words, "has received coverage", I can easily change it to "her work has been written about" in TKTKTKKT, among others publications. Romomusicfan is 100% correct that the MOS also states that that the lede should [briefly] "explain why the topic is notable". Thank you and best wishes to you as well. Netherzone (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If "verifiability is grounded in what reliable sources say in the coverage a person has received in published sources", where is the source that says she has received coverage in the Tampa Bay Times? Hmm. Is the statement "has received coverage in bla bla bla" likely to be challenged? No, because it would already be sourced within the article, and thus makes mentioning it in the lead entirely superfluous. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simple answer to that - the relevant article in the Tampa Bay Times.Romomusicfan (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I've just checked the Paul McCartney article and yes, the lede DOES include his grounds for passing WP:SINGER - membership of two or more notable ensembles (the Beatles and Wings) and various awards/certifications won.Romomusicfan (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

[edit]

Is the text used in the lead of this article - "has received coverage", followed by a list of media outlets - acceptable / encyclopaedic / necessary. It reads to me like absolute nonsense and a way of promoting the subject, and appears to argue that (one of) the main reason(s) she is famous is simply because she has "received coverage"? My view is that notability shouldn't need to be asserted by writing "has received coverage". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove/Rewrite WP:LEAD states “It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points” the keyword there to me is explain. Listing sources does not explain it simple shows. It should talk about the important things that she is notable for not just where she is talked about. Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 22:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEDE clearly states that the lede of an article should explain why the subject is WikiNotable (it wikilinks the word notability to the relevant policy page). In the case of Georgina Baillie the WikiNotability is a simple pass of WP:GNG and SNG WP:SINGER under point one of the latter "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". This is a matter of MOS as well as a defence against deletion.Romomusicfan (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This does not serve the generic WP:LEAD guideline "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points," because it does not explain anything. It is an unnecessary digression for LEAD to explicitly name a few publishers from the end of the Music section. Any question about notability for a musician would be judged by WP:ENTERTAINER and that would be behind the scenes a TALK page, it does not go into article space. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've quoted it yourself there "explain why the topic is notable.". It DOES - subject passes WP:GNG as has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sorces. Assertion of notability states this correctly. Have reverted your deletion Romomusicfan (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So based on your wording here, I'll ask you again - is she notable simply because she received coverage in these publications? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:ItsKesha - I think not -- coverage is shown in the cites list and whether it is notable is by whether the cited items are 'significant' coverage rather than some trivial sidenote. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". - We have a full interview with the subject in an in itself wikinotable website (and former print publication) and two reviews of Adam Ant concerts that focus heavily on the subject's contribution to the performance (in one case to the point of the headline focussing specifically on the subject) in a pair of - both themselves wikinotable - daily newspapers of major cities.Romomusicfan (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Romomusicfan That's mislocated in a couple of ways.
First, the LEAD content guideline recommending "explain why the topic is notable" says *explain* -- as in what they did or had happen to them that makes them notable. Just naming the last three newspapers of the Music section does nothing for explaining. It is about what was said about them, not about what paper mentioned their name.
Second, yes the GNG does ask for "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources", which would be by having cites listed with "significant" content. And the number three is 'multiple', but naming just the last three of the Music section seems kind of random.
For what help it may be, the specific notability guidance for musicians is at WP:ENTERTAINER
1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
2. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENTERTAINER contains, right at the top of it, a specific redirect for musicians for Wikipedia:Notability (music) of which criterion #1 is "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" WP:ENTERTAINER is also a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people) whose basic criteria WP:NBASIC is "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Most SNGs contain a clause like these restating WP:GNG somewhere near the top.)
If that is the basis on which a subject is Wikinotable (and since the word "notable" is wikilinked to Wikipedia:NOTABILITY it clearly means WikiNotability and not just notability in a wider social sense) then that much needs to be indicated in the lede. Without it, not only is the article not complying with MOS, it is also vulnerable to deletion attempts for "not being notable".Romomusicfan (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage makes her Wikinotable, but that's an internal rule for deciding if we're go going to have an article, not something to report to the reader. We're not going to be like "Baillie is Wikinotable because..." or "Baillie has an article here because...". Use the sources to build the article. The reader can note the number and names of the sources and decide how notable Baillie is on her own, if she cares to. Don't lead the reader. Herostratus (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement in WP:LEDE for an Assertion of Notability is not to for "Baillie is Wikinotable because X" but rather "Baillie is X" and Editors to recognise X as being something that passes criteria for notability and so NOT trigger deletion procedures. The actual phrase "is Notable because" does not itself have to appear, but the qualification should be directly referenced.Romomusicfan (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if an artist or band has something better from WP:MUSICBIO than baseline multiple reliable sources - eg national chart hits, certain awards, two albums on a major or big indie label - then that should be substituted. (In the case of Paul McCartney as cited higher up the talk page, we have two notable bands (Beatles/Wings) and various awards in the lede of his article.)Romomusicfan (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SUGGESTION - The Assertion of Notability could be rephrased in this case to reflect the specifics described above - eg "Baillie has been the subject of a full length interview in LTW and has received specific in depth focus in reviews of her performances with Ant's band by the ES and the TBT" rather than simply a list of the three publications. Romomusicfan (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this suggestion is a fine solution, but perhaps could be shortened to: "Baillie's work as a musician has received critical attention in the press." It's not so important to include the names of the publications in the lede, since they are mentioned in the music section. Netherzone (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Netherzone I think that blurb is factually misleading and still think that this line should be simply deleted as misguided over what to show and where to show it for notability and LEAD. Doing some assertion or evidence "Baillie is Wikinotable because X" in the lead is doing nothing but hurt LEAD and diminishing belief in notabilty. Her notability is stated by the lines summarizing the "what" of things that she is known for. Vaguely saying she is noted or explicitly stating the "where" a tiny fraction of cites are simply looks like grasping at straws, it is not showing anything for notability plus failing the LEAD call to *explain*. Naming external coverage seems only suitable for some pundit or web personality without any "what" of note that made them famous and name-dropping the venues as showing them famous for being famous. Like Paris Hilton, that would still need LEAD to be the *explanation* and for GNG to be *substantial* coverage at those cites, not just a list naming a few cites and trivial mentions. The selections here seemed just randomly grabbing the last three cites at the end of the Music section because they seem poor choices to show public notability. One leads to the nothing of a newspaper paywall, another gives a single paragraph sidebar to an Adam Ant article, and the third goes to the small web pub Louder Than War doing an interview.
More accurately, she came to widespread public notice because of Sachsgate, which has cites to the bigger WP:WEIGHT publications (lead should *NOT* list them!) of The London Times, The Telegraph, The Independent, and The Mirror among others in the Sachsgate section. Sachsgate is what made her known outside the small niche of the horror burlesque troupe the Satanic Sluts, and the friendly support by Adam Ant afterwards partly led to her music stint. The Sun, Daily Mail, Mirror, Express and so on would really be better places, but Wikipedia has an issue with those. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not saying "Baillie is wikinotable because of X" though - it's saying "Baillie is X" or more precisely "Baillie has achieved X" - X being something that editors, especially deletionists, would recognise as being a qualification for WikiNotability. LTW had a print edition for much of the 2010s (albeit after the Baillie interview) and is part of a trio along with The Quietus and Vive Le Rock (magazine) that have largely replaced the traditional weekly print music press on the 21st century UK music scene. Given this and its own WikiNotability I would see it as a good reliable source, particularly for bands and musicians whose articles need to establish WikiNotability.Romomusicfan (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts were made - [1] [2] [3] (by users other than Netherzone or myself!!! ) to create a page on this basis around 10-12 years ago. These were ruled as being WP:ONEEVENT and replaced with a redirect to The Russell Brand Show prank calls row. This is a good illustration of the difference between what in practice someone is famous for (Sachsgate) and what someone actually achieves WikiNotability for (a music career garnering significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.)
Re. Tabloids, the Evening Standard is, in the words of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page (on which it is marked yellow) "generally considered more reliable than most British tabloids and middle-market newspapers." hence why it is not depracated like the Sun, Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail (quite properly IMHO) are.Romomusicfan (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a conundrum how to show someone is well known in UK when WP blocks most of the circulation. I Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about showing someone is well known, it's about showing they are notable in the Wikipedia sense.Romomusicfan (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other than removing the sentence in the lead (but leaving the content in the Music sub-section, are there any other thoughts and ideas on how we can improve the lead section, or the article in general? Netherzone (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously I'm happy with the status quo. Perhaps the RfC should be relisted with a different question focussing on how to assert notability for subject where the grounds for WikiNotability is a basic pass of GNG and/or the typically GNG-esque first option of an SNG.Romomusicfan (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Netherzone Well, perhaps reorder in a more chronological ordering and more prominently that currently she is an actress, per [IMDB]. Something like:
Georgina Baillie is an English actress, formerly a post-punk singer, songwriter, actor, and burlesque performer.
In 2008 she came to public attention when she was embroiled in the Sachsgate scandal.
From 2010 to 2013 she was the lead singer of the post-punk band Georgie Girl and her Poussez Posse that toured with Adam Ant as well as working as a backing vocalist for Ant.
She later moved into acting and has featured in theatre and film productions.
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a singer is the thing she is WikiNotable for so that should be the main focus of the article.
Sachsgate would be an example of WP:ONEEVENT and was the precise reason earlier versions of the article were replaced with a redirect.
In any case, the focus on Sachsgate that you seem to demand was something that Netherzone objected to with regards to the redirect pointing to the Sachsgate page and was why Netherzone proposed creating the Georgina Baillie page, something I was supportive of provided that enough sources could be identified to pass Wiki Notability. Netherzone argued that the redirect to Sachsgate was harmful since it reinforced the essentially sexist harm done to Baillie by the actual incident in 2008. An RfC on the subject agreed that the redirect was contrary to WP:DONOHARM. So I would expect Netherzone would object to any greater emphasis on Sachsgate in the article as it stands.Romomusicfan (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think she is notable as a musician and also for Sachsgate. I'm of the opinion that the Sachsgate tabloid media clusterfuck goes well beyond ONEEVENT, since it is still getting coverage, most recently in sociology and media theory/communication studies books. It's impact has gone on over ten years now. And yes, I firmly believe in the principle, Do No Harm, and I think the controversy is represented respectfully here. It's fine with me if it is expanded as long as it does no harm to a living person.
Thank you, Markbassett for your thoughtful suggestions. Good feedback re: making it more chronological. I'm not sure she is formerly a singer, songwriter and actor, though. I think she currently is those things, and formerly a burlesque performer. Romomusicfan is more familiar with her overall career arc than I, but if I am not mistaken, she chronologically first came to public attention as a burlesque performer - before Sachsgate. She then came to the attention of the tabloids due to Sachsgate, and IMO she was not embroiled, but rather she was ensnared/targeted in the slut-shaming prank. She has been described as a "victim" whose privacy was violated by "male power, celebrity and privilege". But Sachsgate is not the end of Baillie's story, she went on to develop a second career for herself as a musician and songwriter with her own band, and also as a vocalist for Ant. And more recently as an actor and visual artist.
I think the article is safe from being deleted due to the large amount of press she's received for both Sachsgate and as a musician. I don't think her notability needs to be proven in the lede, but I also do understand why Romomusicfan would want to include that sentence in the lede given the article history over the years. Netherzone (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the line “Georgina Baillie is an English actress, formerly a post-punk singer, songwriter, actor, and burlesque performer.” should have been “Georgina Baillie is an English actress, formerly a post-punk singer, songwriter, and burlesque performer. ” I believe her period as lead singer was notable, but basically ended 9 years ago and now she is an actress and artist, and the lead is not clear about that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. You don't get to decide when an aspect of her career is "over". We go by what the sources say, not by personal opinions. I have searched and find nothing in any source nor in any published statement by her, that Baillie has given up her career as a "singer, songwriter and actor. Furthermore, why do you believe she is a former actor and now is an actress? Netherzone (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Netherzone ??? Sorry back, but the lead is remiss to misportray the article and the facts there. It is remiss to not make it clear that from 2010 to 2013 is when she performed as a backing singer with Adam Ant and since then went on to the Poor school and her acting career. The article says it, cites say it, but the lead has mangled it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, it's been a bit I suppose I will try again to make the lead better. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]