Talk:Katie Reider

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial discussions[edit]

This article is substantially plagiarized [1].

Fryede (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in contact with some folks who will put together a page in the proper style with citations. If the whole page is deleted in the meantime, is there a problem with restarting it with the new content?

Boone (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk, Boone, but I'll restate here for the record. If the new content does not establish notability as per WP:N and WP:MUSIC, then yes, there is a problem. All the citations in the world don't mean anything if they don't establish notability. Having looked into this before AfDing it, the news coverage is too local, her label is not notable, she won no major awards, and so forth. There's nothing that meets the criteria, and "she might have been notable" doesn't cut it either. In short, if the article can't meet the policy requirements, don't bother writing it, because it's simply going to get deleted again. MSJapan (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Reider received several awards for her music. I don't know the details, but these should be included in the entry. As has been indicated, her music was used in a popular nationally broadcast television series, and she can currently be heard on Sirius Satellite Radio. It's unfortunate that the initial entry was not up to standards, and I hope that does not cloud the revised work. Katie Reider's work was notable, and her Blue Jordan Records label, which has a Wikipedia entry, produces other notable artists -- at least one of whom, David Wolfenberger, has a Wikipedia entry. Katie Reider is cited on the Blue Jordan Records entry and was mentioned there prior to her death, so that should further establish her notability. Nomad 2 (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A relationship of person A to person or thing B that has an article is clearly stated in policy not to establish notability for person A, nor does being mentioned in another Wikipedia article, because WP itself does not establish notability. This is why we aren't an ad vehicle, and why just about any topic that has WP as its only relevant search engine hit out of the first 20 or so is probably not notable.MSJapan (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's the connection I see. Blue Jordan Records is accepted by WP as a notable record label. BJR also released records by musicians deemed notable by WP. Katie Reider produced music for a notable recording label and went on to receive national airplay on a popular television series and is in rotation today on a national satellite radio network.Nomad 2 (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "because A is notable, B is notable" doesn't work here. Second of all, Jordan doesn't meet the notability requirements for a label, and third, I'd like to know what connection you have with the artist that you feel the need to totally misrepresent the whole matter. MSJapan (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Looks like there is a good number of folks that think she's notable. http://blog.nj.com/jerseyblogs/2008/08/keeping_katie_reiders_voice_al.html

Also, the tumor that killed her is pretty rare. I lived in California and heard of her and heard her music on Sirius.

And this: http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080715/ENT03/307150018

Deleting this article further reinforces my belief that wikipedia is going downhill fast because of the agenda-pushing "deletionists." I see NO reason at all to delete this article. KEEP. Besides, looking through the list of people that have died in 2008, they all have Wikipedia articles and are far less notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.84.161 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The need for additional sources[edit]

Anyone looking to improve this article (and possibly save it from possible deletion) should try to add more details about the notable facts of Reider's career along with sources to support the facts. Here are some articles that might do well as sources:

I'd suggest detailing which songs were included on which TV shows, which year and awards she received from the Cincinnati Music/Entertainment Awards, etc. If these sources had been added from the beginning, the article might not have gone to AfD. Now that a debate has begun, nothing is certain. I leave this to others with more time and interest (I've never heard Reider's music myself).

Also, I notice that the same person who sent this to AfD also proposed deletion for nearly every article related to Blue Jordan Records (I suppose if you discredit all of them at once you avoid debates about the notability of one supporting the notability of others). I think some of these articles have potential for wikipedia, however, and encourage others to pursue them. I don't the time or familiarity with these musicians though. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the problem is local coverage. As far as anyone knows at the moment, she was an indie coffeehouse musician who never did anything notable outside of her local area, and the fact that what you found is all local only supports the fact that she's not notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Here's a good food-for-thought question: why did no one, in six years, think she was notable enough for WP until she died? That's simply not a good sign.
As for the other articles the ones I prodded say "so and so from Cincinnati, released such and such album on Jordan", end of stub, and they've been there for three years like that, all started by the same IP (not surprisingly). COI or advertising, perhaps? (which are both inappropriate for WP). Also, per policy, Wikipedia articles do not support each other's notability anyway, so my prodding them has nothing to do with asserting notability on this article.MSJapan (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of her press was in Ohio and much of her following was regional. So what. There are still multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. Also, there are lots of notable living people with no coverage on wikipedia. It seems natural that when someone dies that people become interested in documenting their lives. If folk-singer Tom Prasada-Rao or drummer Kenny Malone were to pass suddenly and I finally got around to writing an article that I should have started years ago or even better a new editor were inspired to login, would there be something wrong with that? (Look them up on google books, read their bios at allmusic.com, but here they've been red links for years) I don't get your point. The media is writing about Reider now, why wouldn't wikipedians do so? Especially while these new sources are becoming available. I do agree with you that notability is not transferable from one article to another, and I suppose it's your right to ask for the articles in the "Blue Jordan family" to be reviewed and maybe your even right about the COI issues. Or maybe an editor just was really into the Cincinnati folk scene, liked the label and decided to start some articles. Who knows. Who cares. Motivation is not important if notability exists and I think there is a chance you're wrong about a few of these. -MrFizyx (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the entire point of contention is that notability does not exist, motivation is a big factor. WP is neither a memorial nor an ad venue, and the fact that Brhannan/Nomad 2 is pushing this so hard and has access to Katie's materials (or so he claims in a contrib) tells me there's something going on here besides happenstance. More fundamentally, there is a lower limit to notability, and I think Reider is under it without some very specific sources that would show her to have been more than a local or regional indie musician. Meeting one notability criterion isn't really acceptable considering what the truly notable musicians meet for criteria, even in folk and acoustic circles. There's easily locatable content that shows what needs to be shown, and there really isn't any here. MSJapan (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There really is no question here that this artist "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." I.e. she passes WP:MUSIC and/or WP:N if you'd rather. You want to demand more than the criteria require (while calling your undefined standard a "lower limit"?) and are trying to reveal a hidden agenda. Sorry, but I can't go there with you. -MrFizyx (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as notability is concerned, a third of a page in the New York Times is a significant element that adds up to the previous material to establish a "critical mass". http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/nyregion/24towns.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=reider&st=cse&oref=slogin Plexusnexus (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)plexusnexus[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from this URL: http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080714/ENT/80714003. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tweak[edit]

I have tried to tweak this abit. Thank you, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info on her father[edit]

Another editor has repeatedly removed information on Reider's father, saying things like, "her father's accomplishments and website are irrelevant to Katie's bio when the info is in the also-cited obit." I don't follow the logic. Doesn't the fact that many sources "also cite" this in articles on Katie Reider indicate that it is relevant? I think this is simple. He was her father. He was a musician, a singer. She became a musician, a singer. More recently I've read that her album, Simplicity, was a solo acoustic effort recorded by Rob Reider in his home studio. How could his talents not be relevant to her work? -MrFizyx (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was not in the article, though; what was was that he supposedly won Emmy awards and was a bandleader. His website (used as a "source") says none of this and instead says he is an airshow announcer. Therefore, there is no source that show that his accomplishments and job have anything to do with her (you imply she's a musician and singer because he is. Where does she say that? It's not on his website, BTW), and his "talents" had nothing to do with the majority of her work if he was only involved with her last album. MSJapan (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a compromise. We can leave out Rob Reider's website for now. Another editor had hot-linked it to his name. I don't like seeing that in the text of an article and so I moved it to a footnote. It does offer the reader some extra information about him, but at the moment it is superfluous. The "Emmy award winning" claim is likely true, but might be regarded as a peacock term anyway, so if it bothers you, we can leave that out too. The source provided (and dozens of other sources out there) does note: "Reider was the daughter of Rob Reider, best known as the band leader on the Cincinnati-based syndicated entertainment program The Bob Braun Show in the 1970s and ’80s." Something to this effect needs to be stated in the article. It is so widely noted in the media coverage of Katie Reider that removing this cited fact and claiming it to be "irrelevant" is, in my view, a violation of the Wikipedia policy regarding the neutral point of view.
I notice this isn't the only arbitrary removal of material that you've made in this article. I sure hope it is not your intention to camp here, to continue to remove facts and/or sources or to otherwise try to find a back door to deletion of content. There are so many sources on this biography that it will be easy to expand. When I return to this topic and enter cited facts from published sources, I expect them to stick. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse me of arbitrary removal when you yourself agree that the material isn't relevant. You want to mention that he was a bandleader and it's cited, that's fine as a descriptor, but to add in uncited awards for Rob Reider's career is excessive when it's not his biography. To then try to support that addition by footnoting a website that doesn't have the information just because it's Rob Reider's website (which by the way, has nothing about Katie on it) is implying a citation that doesn't exist. Then you want to make some sort of implied career connection between the two of them for which you also have no source. Did you ever think that my supposed "arbitrary removals" might have a lot to do with your "arbitrary additions" that aren't proven by sources? As long as you continue to add material like that, how do you seriously expect it not to be removed? MSJapan (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, check the history. I haven't edited this article yet, except to format a couple of references that others added and one reversion of something your removed. Second, if you want to productively contribute to this article, instead of removing its contents when citations are missing, you can add {{fact}} tags and give others a reasonable amount of time to provide citations. This is the recommended way to interact on Wikipedia, particularly when others object to your removals, as I and other editors have (see for example WP:PROVEIT). Yes, I seriously expect that when other editors revert your removals as one editor did here that you won't come back less than a minute later and remove it again. Damn straight I'm serious. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting very far off the initial statement, but we might as well keep going anyway. As a note, PROVEIT is a redirect to the section in WP:V on burden of proof, just for anyone who wasn't aware. Since that's the basis of the argument, let's look at it a bit. First off, key statement: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It goes on to say "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books."
So if you want to add something and you can't source it, you should not be adding it, and therefore anyone can remove it. What you stated above was an assumption (her father is a musician so she became one) with no source for it besides synthesis, which is against policy. Also on sources: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources." Therefore, if you can cite something directly, that's fine, but you can't manufacture a citation out of nothing. Also, see the self-published sources and self-published about themselves policies.  :::::If you want to contribute and can do so properly, go right ahead, but if you're going to quote policies at other editors, make sure you know how they work. Moreover, any editor has the right to question the reliability of a source. Finally, I didn't "come by a minute later and revert" anything; neither I (nor anyone else) has done any editing to this article in a week, and my last edit was to add the delrev template and remove the stuff you admitted above was peacock material anyway (which you didn't find a source for in the last week, may I add). If it comes down to the fact that the sources don't exist to make the article do what you want, I can't help that. MSJapan (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, the right to question a source is not the same as removing material without discussion and over another's objections 44 seconds after they've reverted you. Second, "her father is a musician so she became one," was really your assumption not mine (reread). And mentioning that on a talk page would not require a citation anyways. Third, everything I know about Katie Reider I've read in published sources after seeing your deletion debate. I'd never heard of her before that. So anything that I eventually add to this article will be sourced, so settle down and behave yourself. Adopt a more civil approach to this article, thats all I'm asking. -MrFizyx (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the need to continue this (lord knows why) come to my talk page and lets stop discussing things that don't have much to do with the article here. -MrFizyx (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katie_Reider&oldid=1206826861"