Talk:Amber Atherton: Difference between revisions

Requested Expansion/Update

Hi. I'm Amber Atherton, the subject of the page. The current page is only 7-8 sentences long and hasn't been updated in years. In compliance with WP:COI, I wanted to propose a draft replacement intended to create a more robust starting point for future editors. Let me know if there's anything I can do to make it easier for independent, impartial editors to evaluate if the proposed draft would be an improvement. Best regards. Gadgetgyal (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

 Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Usually such comprehensive rewrites by article subjects need a lot of work to be usable, but this is actually quite well done and an obvious improvement over the previous. Rusalkii (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Gadgetgyal (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Discussthis, I noticed you reverted this change. Could you explain what parts you objected to, beyond it being "a PR update"? I think, while it certainly isn't perfect it's better than what is currently there, which is a random assortment of barely connected out-of-date facts. Are there specific aspects of the change you think are excessively promotional? Rusalkii (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Some information in the update is unsourced. The updates with sources all reference media articles where information relies solely on the subject's claims without any fact checking. As mentioned historically in this article (and for many other subjects who attempt to use Wikipedia for personal promotion) such claims are best kept to personal websites and social media. Unless there is verifiable proof there is no right to publish as fact. Discussthis (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Every single sentence in the new addition was sourced? While I did not check that every single claim was in the sources when reviewing the edit request I spot checked a bunch of them and everything I checked was okay. Some of the sources are definitely relying just on the subject (primary sources/interviews), but there's plenty of normal newspaper articles: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I think there's an okay argument that some of the information sourced to interviews exceeds the bounds of what it's reasonable to source to non-indepenendent sources and should be trimmed, but that's very different from reverting the whole thing to the current very low quality article. Rusalkii (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

'Every single sentence in the new addition was sourced?' that's not true.

As I said, all the updated information comes from sources that are ultimately the subject's own claims. IF subject was a public figure it could be relevant to mention their claims as part of the article (e.g. '[subject] reported [x] in interview with [publisher]', as part of a wider picture. But simply using paid-for publicity interviews as 'sources' as if fact, to embelish someones status, doesn't work. Discussthis (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

If everything is prefaced by '[subject] claims' with a relevant source, AND if there is no information without a source that would be acceptable to publish here as a record of published media if nothing else. I still dispute it's relevance and would call another person in for moderation then. Discussthis (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the OP of this article @Serpinski6 can weigh in on the right direction to take, but I think saying you want to update because it's a 'very low quality article' is obviously disingenuous. I hope you're donating to wiki if you're profiting in this way. Discussthis (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

This is the revision I approved: Special:Permalink/1281531495. Aside from the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article and doesn't require sources if it restates the contents (WP:LEAD), every single sentence has at least one source, unless I'm completely blind here (which is always possible. I have made some pretty dumb mistakes in my life). Is this what you were looking at when you said that it wasn't true that every sentence was sourced, or are we talking past each other somehow?

As I said above, some of the sources are clearly not independent, I don't dispute that. Mostly I think they're being used to support WP:ABOUTSELF facts like the subject's birthplace, but not necessarily all, and some of that could be trimmed. But some are the kinds of newspapers that are accepted, on wiki, as a reliable independent source with a presumption of fact checking. WP:THETIMES has a RSNP entry. I'm not sure if Vogue Business has the same editorial standards as WP:VOGUE, but at least regular Vogue is considered generally reliable. I can't find the Standard at RSN but it looks like a perfectly reasonable newspaper. I think it's important to address any issues you have with promotion here, and I'm definitely not married to the specific content in that edit, but I disagree with your description of the situation. I think if you still disagree we should take this to WP:COIN or WP:BLPN and get a second opinion. I don't really want to sink a lot of time into this article, tbh. (If you still think the subject isn't notable after reviewing the first AfD I suppose you could also nominate it for a second AfD, if you're planning on doing that I'd rather keep any debates about the content of the article until after the AfD's concluded in case they're rendered moot that way.)

To be clear: I am not the COI editor, that's @Gadgetgyal, who has declared their COI. I came across this article while reviewing conflict of interest edit requests and otherwise had never so much as heard of this person before. Rusalkii (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the sources, the outlets themselves, are standard acceptabl. Like I said the actual content of the article should be '[subect] claimed [x] in [source]' type of thing. We're not talking past each other you just clearly have some kind of PR/promotional intention. As clever as your response is I'm a lot older and a lot wiser (and a lot tireder) in this regard. You have some reason to promote subject of this article, wikipedia has standards as an encclyopeia, yada yada. You've obviously studied the rules, so go ahead and call someone else in if you want to keep trying. Discussthis (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

and just for some clarity for any future budding editors, @Rusalkii is claiming 'every single sentence' is sourced... you can read for yourself. a very wide leeway. If we let everyone pay to get an article published about themselves and use that as a source as 'every single sentence' then we'll get a lot of people claiming to be Ghenghis Kahn or similar. There are rules for a reason. Discussthis (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I'd like to request this version of the page be restored, reverting the large deletion of content by @Discussthis:. See here and above for context. This would restore cited content, add a copyright-free headshot, and make the page more complete/up-to-date. I think there is already a loose consensus among impartial editors that the deletions did not improve the page. I'll see if we can get another editor or two to weigh in from maybe WP:WOMRED though. Gadgetgyal (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Support The changes seem well and properly sourced and are as neutral as is possible for a modern era biography. Honestly, Discussthis' edit history is bizarre, what with them being an WP:SPA seemingly out to make this article look as bad as possible, even as far back as two years ago. Do you have some sort of IRL rival/enemy that would care enough to be this obsessive about you, Gadgetgyal? Silverseren^C 22:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Oops, I'm very sorry @Gadgetgyal, I completely dropped this, I meant to revert to that version after the discussion at the noticeboard and just straight-up forgot. Between Silver seren and the discussion there I am happy to do this now. If Discussthis wants to dispute this I think at this point the onus is on them and we can have that conversation with the new version in place for now. Rusalkii (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It’s quite disappointing to see this kind of behaviour from editors. There’s a reason SUAs are used, a reason small/low-interest articles are monitored, and a reason suspected pay-for-play editors are identified. I will reiterate: you cannot just post baseless primary-source claims. You’ve reverted post to claim subject created aTV Series with the only source being an unreferenced Buzzfeed Community article. The TV Series article page is well-referenced an no sources credit Atherton as a creator or producer. No reliable sources for her company sales figure claim, her childhood, or her current career. I’ll leave it for now because it’s low priority but this type of bought self-promotion is being stamped out. Discussthis (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Article subject has been legally warned already against making false claims and editors may want to heed warning. Discussthis (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Which English?

Should this article on a US-based British person be in British or American English? There is no {{Use British English}} or {{Use American English}}. As a Brit, I notice "jewelry" as an American spelling. PamD 07:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like she lived in Hong Kong (which I assume uses British English)/the UK until 2017, which... was 8 years ago, actually, oh dear, I was about to make an argument based on that being quite recent. Anyway, I do still think British English but I need to get over my crisis about the passage of time first. Rusalkii (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• archive Discussthis (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)