Talk:Aella (influencer)

sex researcher or data scientist

i find that there are two different titles that would work for Aella according to most sources: 1. data scientist, and 2. sex researcher.

if anyone wants to move the page based on a more informed name then go ahead and do it. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

A started a draft for her a while ago as Draft:Aella (internet personality). She is primarily known through social media not through academia. Thriley (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the New York Post a reliable source for whether someone can be described as a "data scientist"? Trivialist (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NYPOST is generally unreliable and given to fabrication and is not a good source for anything, particularly a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The full quote is, "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department." this means "generally unreliable", but i dont know if that extends to "for anything", it seems like NYC and "particularly New York City politics" is where it is most highlighted as a total no-no. otherwise i think used with discretion, as here, is appropriate. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Generally unreliable" means it's generally unreliable - "generally" means "for anything" - not that it's not generally unreliable. It's not clear how you get that from "generally unreliable". It means it shouldn't be used on Wikipedia articles except in remarkable circumstances, and a source that nearly got deprecated for fabrication really is just not a suitable source for any claim whatsoever on a WP:BLP. I urge you to review Wikipedia sourcing rules, especially on WP:BLPs - and not with an eye to loopholes to use a known-bad source because there's a paucity of good ones - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

wouldn't the wording be "universally unreliable" then? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If John "generally does not like to go to the park", that does not mean he does not like to ever go to parks, just not "generally" or "most of the time". Iljhgtn (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

the perennial list has some disagreement and there is not clear consensus on its use or application if i am not mistaken as well. so as long as we stay away from the material that is most clearly warned about if we are to use it (NYC politics etc.), i think it should be ok to use as one source of several for purposes of verifiability or of non-controversial claims. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You're working in loophole mode, as I described. The NY Post is a trashy tabloid; we absolutely should not be using tabloids on a BLP except in remarkable circumstances. If all you have to cite a claim is NY Post, you don't have a cite. This should be reasonably obvious.

Your actual problem here is that Aella isn't notable. There's barely any coverage of her. Most coverage is of various companies called Aella. It's questionable whether we have the material for an article up to the standards of WP:BLP.

You need good solid independent WP:RSes. That you even think the NY Post is a possible source here strongly suggests you need to understand Wikipedia sourcing better, and not treat it as a game of Nomic - David Gerard (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

what is a "game of nomic"? Also, please just show me in the blp or perennial list where it would not be allowed as a secondary or tertiary source for purposes of verifiability of non-controversial datapoints, especially given that the subject is not related to "New York politics"? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If you really want to know whether the NY Post is a good source on a very skimpy BLP, you probably need to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard for a broad consensus opinion. If you're looking for a specific rule against a loophole you just constructed, you probably won't find it - but that will be taken as evidence you don't understand what you're doing here. If you try to look for ambiguities in the word "generally" that mean something other than "generally", you are incorrectly understanding how Wikipedia works. If you want to understand the consensus against the NY Post, the RSP entry is a summary for information; here's the actual RFC. If you read that and try to mine it for loopholes, I probably can't help you much - David Gerard (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

thanks, i mentioned that now on that talk page, though that draft can probably be deleted/closed at this point. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears that someone changed the source to be Reason.com, which is an even worse source. As far as I can tell she has no formal education in this topic, has never published or been referenced in any major literature. If Dan Carlin isn't a historian, or Richard Dawkins isn't a philosopher, then someone who is known for making twitter polls about fetishes on the political compass certainly isn't a scientist. Jelephant (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

what label is best? also, where is that source deprecated? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Reason.com isn't officially depreciated, but it is not an academic paper nor a paper of record, it is essentially just a niche political magazine that used her self-identified label. She should be called an influencer, if she is even notable at all to get an article. Jelephant (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

is influencer commonly used? I just want to use whatever term makes the most sense. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

boldly moved the page to now say (influencer) unless anyone objects? then i will move it back. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

also, seems like doing that broke one of the sources somehow.. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

that was my bad, I broke it when cleaning it up, then the paragraphs got moved around. I fixed it now Jelephant (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, Reason is considered generally reliable under current community consensus. It appears that you disagree with this consensus (an even worse source, isn't officially depreciated, but ...)?

Obviously it has a certain ideological bias and is not a peer-reviewed academic publication. But the same is true for many other reliable sources that we routinely use for BLPs. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Notability test

What are the three solid RSes that best show that Aella passes WP:NBIO, WP:NSCIENTIST, WP:NCREATIVE or any other Wikipedia notability criterion? - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

(Looking at Google news hits, the one thing that gets all the tabloids writing about Aella is that she doesn't wash much. I submit that this is probably not going to make it for Wikipedia notability.) - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:GNG might be the most likely avenue here. I just added one WP:SIGCOV citation from a book published by PublicAffairs. Haven't examined the other citations remaining in the current article version, though.

Could you explain why you removed the October 2023 Reason podcast in this edit? Is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline stipulating that any podcast (or radio broadcast etc.) is automatically regarded as not being a reliable source, regardless of the publishing news outlet's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

YMMV, but podcasts don't get high regard at RSN as functionally self-sources. Going on a podcast is extremely unlikely to count for notability. It's the sort of source that gets used in cases like this one, when there's not much in the way of solid RSes and someone's throwing in whatever they can grasp at - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

So the answer to the second question is "no". And Going on a podcast seems a weird way of framing it in this context, as if RS publications were not making independent editorial decisions about whom to interview and whom not. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

none. this article is worthless and should be deleted 63.152.91.194 (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

infobox type

I have seen that some YouTube popular internet personalities use a special type of infobox that appears to have red outlines and some special styling. Does anyone know if that is the type of infobox that this article should be using instead? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

More sources

Just moved from text:

She has also been interviewed by GQ, Playboy, AskMen, and Business Insider.

We shouldn't just have a list like this. Are these usable as actual wiki-quality sources? some should be - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

References

should be deleted

This is not a notable person by any means and should not have an article on this site. 63.152.95.90 (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

image copyright questions

Several images have been added, deleted, then added, etc.

Would someone be able to search the media available and see about uploading one? While I have experience uploading book covers and movie/film posters in non-free use situations, I am not an expert on WP copyright policy.

The following images seem like possible candidates:

• File:210919 Aella A Data Driven Approach to Sex Work -hru 1.jpg
• Aella.jpg Iljhgtn (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a BLP. Unless it's a remarkably historically important image, all images have to be under a free license - we don't just use them as decoration. WP:NFC: Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people. See also WP:NFCC on how to use book images, etc. in articles specifically about the book - David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

delete this article

this person is not important enough to have a page on this wiki and it seems pretty obvious that the subject had some hand in creating this article. 63.152.91.194 (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect Sources

Source 1 is a dead link, and source 3 references a book but there is no mention anywhere online of the author EVER mentioning Aella.

I second the others who say this article should just be deleted. ElleBlair (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I did get hold of the book and he does mention Aella. Here it is in full, and it quotes her too:

A crypto entrepreneur and former webcam model who goes by the name of Aella has written extensively about the psychology and economics of online sex work, conducting extensive surveys and research in order to lay out the ecosystem of online sex workers. She presented the fierce competition for attention and revenue among camgirls as yet another game.

But yes, it's a mention in passing, not BLP writing about Aella - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because talk page conversations have engaged with this page many times over. Certainly does not qualify for "speedy" at all. --Iljhgtn (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)