Talk:Alex Paxton-Beesley

Untitled

I never saw the previous article, this is all my own work. I believe Alex Paxton-Beesley is more than justifiable to have an article with her huge contribution to the arts, and more than happy to continue to add references to prove this fact. deleting her left a huge vacuum in this encyclopedia. Deletion should not mean forever, her career has moved on significantly in the last 18 months. James Kevin McMahon (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"huge contribution" is a stretch - a lot of her roles are one-off and two-off appearances. I'm editing the article to pare down some of the hype I see in the current version. PKT(alk) 19:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Primary source?

In this edit it appears an editor believes that the article relies too heavily on primary sources. Of the 26 sources, I don't actually see any. I see Globe & Mail, CBC, other news sources, film festivals and theatre companies. I'm not sure which of those are primary. Perhaps {{primary-inline}} could be used, with the optional reason parameter, to explain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Film festivals and theatre companies are primary sources, not reliable ones, for establishing the notability of an actor or actress. An actress is notable when her performances are referenceable to media coverage about them, not when they're referenceable to the film's entry in a film festival program or her "our actors" profile on the self-published website of a theatre company or her "our alumni" profile on the website of her own alma mater. References #2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 are primary sources, not reliable ones, for the purposes of referencing the notability of an actress. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

They are not. If she published them they would be primary. They are writing about her. Those may be her own bios, but they are not the original publisher. Show me in WP:RSN where festivals, theatre companies and media coverage are PRIMARY. They're not even restricted at the section of the policy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Primary sourcing is not only her own website about herself and nothing else — it is any source with which she has any form of direct affiliation at all. That includes things like her alumni profile on the website of her own alma mater, and her "our actors" profile on the website of a theatre company she's acted for, and the program schedule of a film festival a film she was in has screened at. There is only one kind of sourcing that is ever acceptable for establishing the notability of an actress: media coverage about her in a media outlet or a book. Not alumni profiles on the website of her own alma mater, not the theatre companies she's worked for, not the non-independent PR of her films: media coverage about her and her performances. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree, to not be a primary source it has to be independent of the subject, it is hard to see how (for example) an employer is independent.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Whether a source is primary has nothing to do with whether it's affiliated or not. From the actual policy Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. and A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. with emphasis on "generally". Granted I see why people would think otherwise as the policy text is a mite self contradictory but it's not fundamentally about COI or anything like that. It also has nothing to do with reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on that reading, they are primary sources. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)