Talk:Ashley Storrie

Possible reference articles

A list of relevant articles providing background on the subject. May be useful to cite, or may not. Copied shamelessly from the scots talk page.

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/stand-up-ashley-storrie-on-rebelling-against-comedy-viral-success-and-mental-health/
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15442369.ashley-storrie-daughter-comedy-legend---taking-game/
https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/theatre-and-stage/scotsman-sessions-122-ashley-storrie-and-janey-godley-3002334
https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/comedian-ashley-storrie/
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/18397550.glasgow-comedians-ashley-storrie-friends-pre-lockdown-adventures-new-show-up-it/
https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/edinburgh-fringe-review-ashley-storrie-shares-her-story-in-a-hilarious-hour-of-stand-up-therapy/
https://list.co.uk/news/8363/interview-janey-godley-and-ashley-storrie-as-for-running-away-the-thought-has-genuinely-never-crossed-my-mind
https://www.chortle.co.uk/review/2019/07/21/43646/ashley_storrie_at_latitude
https://list.co.uk/news/10027/interview-ashley-storrie-i-have-been-known-to-go-a-bit-tonto
https://www.beyondthejoke.co.uk/content/7353/janey-godley-comedy-award
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/18306945.comedian-ashley-storrie-get-called-ugly-daily-strangers/
https://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2020/09/23/46953/2020_scottish_comedy_award_winners_revealed
193.82.232.233 (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The questioning of active BBC TV presenter Ashley Storrie’s page suitability

@Jkaharper

Please explain why you have twice added a notability tag to this article, suggesting that it’s notability is “seriously questionable”. Elinoria (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I restored that banner – as it was removed within such a short time space of myself adding it, and without any discussion. Quick Google doesn't suggest widespread notability to me. Low profile comedian, of which there are 10s of thousands in the UK. The only thing I can see that may justify her having an individual page is the fact that she is a BBC Radio Scotland presenter, but again that could be debated as there are 1000s of "local" or "regional" presenters in the country, not all need Wikipedia pages. --Jkaharper (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jkaharper

Please remove the banner.

As per her article, Storrie is a national radio presenter on BBC Radio Scotland, with a weekly show.

She has had her own show on BBC Radio 4, and stars in the BBC Three comedy, Dinosaur, a programme that she co-created. Elinoria (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ll wait for other opinions first. You have no autonomy here. --Jkaharper (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Elinoria on this. She and her BBC show Dinosaur are leading the nominations at this year's Scottish BAFTAs. She has presented multiple BBC radio shows on a national level and has almost 60,000 followers on Facebook alone. I believe she satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 16:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Mesmeilleurs Elinoria (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable sources, not by what the person has done or how many followers she has. I looked at the 15 sources currently in the article and don't see that any of them provide significant, independent coverage. #1,2,3,10,11 and 15 are based on interviews, which don't count toward notability because they are not independent of the subject. #4 is very short and also based on an interview. #5 is her profile by her management company and is obviously not independent. #6 is a couple of sentences about one of her skits. #7 and 12 are just some photos from a show she is in. #8 and 9 are about an award she won, both of which merely mention her name. #13 is a promotional paragraph about a show from the show's production company. #14 is a short article about her show, not about her.

I also looked at the 12 sources listed above by 193.82.232.233. Of the ones that are not currently used in the article, again most are interviews. The Chortle piece is perhaps the best, but it's a review of her act, without much depth about Storrie herself.

If she is indeed as significant a figure as @Elinoria and @Mesmeilleurs are claiming, surely there must be better sources that discuss her in depth. I did an admittedly short Google search and couldn't find any good sources. CodeTalker (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this @CodeTalker or @Jkaharper? You say you did an “admittedly short Google search” which is something Jkaharper said he had done, and something I mentioned as not an ideal way to determine notability. Are users allowed to use two accounts when commenting on the same article? Is this what you mean when you say “I’ll wait for other opinions first”?

Is this a sockpuppet account that you might need to tell @Bbb23 about? Elinoria (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I have never had a sockpuppet account – that’s quite a bold accusation, especially seeing as the above user seems to have been registered since at least 2012. If you want, feel free to take it to sockpuppet investigations. Would love to see your reaction (or lack of) when it amounts to nothing. There’s no consensus on the above so the banner stays for now. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Elinoria, making accusations of sockpuppetry without presenting any evidence is casting aspersions and can be grounds for sanctions. Please assume good faith and do not make such accusations unless you can present evidence. Two editors looking at the same article and coming to the same conclusion is not evidence of sockpuppetry.

Regarding the article, do you have any response to the substance of my analysis? Can you present any new sources that contribute to notability, or do you have a counterargument that any of the existing sources do so? If no one can point to reliable independent sources that cover the subject in depth, the next step should probably be AfD. CodeTalker (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

These discussions are becoming tiresome to read. Notability has been challenged and sources have been provided. It is now time for those still challenging the notability to either seek deletion for wider opinions, or desist and the tag can be removed. Crowsus (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

So you disagree with my analysis of the sources above? Which sources do you think contribute to notability?

Also, this discussion has been in progress for a little over one day. I'm sorry that you find it tiresome but I'd like to have a full discussion here before we proceed to AfD. I'm not yet convinced that the subject is not notable but I haven't seen any good sources yet. CodeTalker (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@CodeTalker -- It's a good rule of thumb that any page available in more than one wikipedia language is by definition notable. Or will you be campaigning similarly to have the Scots page removed as well? That should go well for you, especially if you are unfamiliar with the cultures of Scotland or of the UK.

But really, you are clearly an anonymous troll who is sealioning, and you are in the minority compared to the large number of people who have collaboratively edited and grown this article.

I don't believe you are acting in good faith. Please desist with your frankly unnecessary and unwanted actions.

-- Lloyd Wood (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing trollish about trying to improve an article's sourcing as I am doing. I have provided a detailed source analysis above, showing why I believe the current sources are inadequate. Three editors have replied in this thread and none have addressed any of the issues I have raised about the sources, instead resorting to ridiculous aspersions of sockpuppetry and trolling. I would appreciate it if you could address the substance of my arguments, which is about the article's sources, and refrain from ad hominem personal attacks. If any of the article's current sources contribute to notability, please identify them. Or if better sources are available, please link to them.

And no, I am not aware of any guideline that says that a subject that has a page in multiple Wikipedias is automatically notable. On the contrary, my understanding is that each Wikipedia is an independent project, with its own policies and notability criteria, which may be very different from the English Wikipedia policies. Therefore the existence of a page in another Wikipedia has no bearing on whether there should be a page in the English Wikipedia. If I am mistaken about that, please point me to the relevant policy page. CodeTalker (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jkaharper@CodeTalker@Crowsus@Lloyd Wood@Mesmeilleurs

I’m stepping away from the Janey Godley and Ashley Storrie pages now.

It’s so sad that for whatever reason, the articles about this mother and daughter have been targeted in the week of the former’s death, but it’s not my battle. Elinoria (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Elinoria, it is sad that a certain editor/editors here are showing a clear bias against these two women. But, given Janey’s outspoken stance on issues like trans rights, Scottish independence and U.S. politics, I think it’s not surprising that her detractors would be as petty as to act like this over a Wikipedia page.

Thank you for your work in trying to improve these two pages! Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 12:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

And yet another response that does not engage at all with the sourcing issues, but implies that anyone who might try to adhere to Wikipedia sourcing policies on this page has ulterior motives. I for one have never even heard of this woman (I don't know what "two women" you are referring to) before a couple of days ago, and have no opinions about her, or any knowledge of her stance on trans rights or politics. This conversation is baffling to me; I have never before encountered a page with so many editors willing to assert notability but unwilling to discuss the reasons for that assertion. CodeTalker (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mesmeilleurs:, what on earth are you talking about? On the contrary – I've improved the Godley page, removed unsourced content, restored previously deleted content, and nothing about her views on Scottish independence and women's rights was removed by me. I removed its repetition in a place where it did not belong, as it was already covered in its respective section. Godley was first and foremost a comedian (and a bit part actress). Her personal opinions on Twitter may have been significant to you, but they do not belong in a lead section – it could even be argued that "activist" is a stretch, but I'm not going to fight that one. As for her daughter, unlike Godley, Storrie is teetering on the edge of notability. It's sad that rather than engage in constructive conversation, you're pointing a finger at me and the above user and accusing us of having an "ulterior motive" or bias. We could have actually had a productive back and forth and made some real progress on compromises and joint edits by now, but instead you've chosen hostility – not my problem. --Jkaharper (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, since no one supporting the retention of this page seems willing to engage and discuss the subject's notability in any substantive way, I have done a reasonably thorough WP:BEFORE search and have not found any independent sources that discuss the subject in any depth. Given that, and the lack of notability-establishing sources currently in the article, I intend to nominate the article at AfD, so that the community can decide on the subject's notability. If anyone has any policy-based reasons why that should not be done, I implore you to present them here. I would like to retain this article, but it can't be done without good sources. CodeTalker (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@CodeTalker You don't know, and I quote,'"what two women" you are referring to'? Even though their connection is well known and noted here in Wikipedia? Yet you're clearly willing to pass judgment on the content and worth of the article, and of its editors, and edit a page when you clearly haven't done the reading to even make the connection between the two women? You demand evidence be brought to you even when the evidence is right in front of you? You have no knowledge of the subject matter, or indeed of the culture where Storrie has been notable since her teens? That is trolling. 193.82.232.233 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, once again, no discussion of the sources, just personal accusations. The evidence in right in front of me? What does that mean? You believe that some of the article's current sources contribute to notability? Could you please identify those sources? CodeTalker (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

As I have said before, @CodeTalker is clearly sealioning.

-- Lloyd Wood (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, since clearly no one in this discussion is going to present any policy-based arguments based on sources, we will let the AfD process determine what happens. CodeTalker (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ashley Storrie article nominated for deletion

This article has now been nominated for deletion by @CodeTalker . I believe the subject is notable, and that the article is good. Please express your views on the article deletion page. Lloyd Wood (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I will also suggest that participants review WP:AFDFORMAT if you are unfamiliar with the AfD process. In particular, note that When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy. Generally this means that your arguments for or against notability should be supported by sources. Unsupported assertions that the subject is or is not notable carry little weight. CodeTalker (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lloyd Wood, @Crowsus, thank you for contributing to the AfD discussion. I still don't understand why you were unwilling to discuss the sources on this page but I am glad you are now doing so on the AfD. Discussing notability objectively is a healthier and more productive process than what was happening here. CodeTalker (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@CodeTalker You forced this AfD, in an attempt to force others to respond to you on your chosen terms. My bet is that you don't live in the UK, as evidenced by not knowing Storrie or Godley, or understanding the significant weight attached to creating and performing in shows for the national broadcaster and reaching millions of people. Let's be clear: you're still sealioning, and you're patronising to boot. Little wonder that you hide behind a shield of anonymity. Lloyd Wood (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that the AfD discussion has now been concluded and archived (link in banner at top of this discussion page), and given the verdict of no consensus -- despite the majority of votes being keep. The process has either arguably been a distraction or has resulted in a lot of attention and led to an even better, well-sourced, article; that which does not kill us makes us stronger.

The Scottish BAFTA awards are tomorrow; Storrie has four nominations. Lloyd Wood (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Storrie won two BAFTAs out of the five that she and Dinosaur were in the running for, including a popular national vote. That's no longer "teetering on the edge of notability" but clearly vaulting over the threshold -- as the citations added to the article attest. I think we're good on sourcing, and so I've removed that sources banner. Lloyd Wood (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)