Talk:Sonita Lontoh

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

BINK Robin (talk · contribs) has been paid by Beutler Ink on behalf of Sonita Lontoh.

Notability discussion[edit]

@Ipigott and Ew3234:

Hello! I'm starting this discussion as part of my work for Beutler Ink, on behalf of Sonita Lontoh. Lontoh has received more coverage since the article was last discussed in January 2023.

Ipigott, I tagged you here because you reviewed my draft after I posted to WikiProject Women in Red. Ew3234, I pinged you because you nominated the article for deletion in 2023 and in 2021. Because Lontoh's notability has been discussed before, I thought I'd seek input from the two of you before submitting through Articles for Creation. I'd welcome additional editors to this conversation, but for the sake of not tagging too many folks at once, I started with only the two of you.

For some historical context, Beutler Ink was not involved with the article that was deleted in 2021. I posted the 2023 draft and disclosed my conflict of interest before for that was accepted and subsequently nominated for deletion. Since then, several more profiles on Sonita Lontoh have been published. My goal here is to discuss the new coverage with editors familiar with the topic.

The 2021 deletion discussion included a table examining sourcing at the time, so here I'll focus on coverage that has been published since then.

There has been other coverage, but thinking along the lines of WP:THREE, I figured it made sense to highlight the most in-depth pieces. Happy to hear any feedback. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BINK Robin:: If you would like me to look at a new draft, please provide a link.--Ipigott (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott sure thing! the draft can be found here. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BINK Robin: Now in mainspace. Let me know when it is no longer an orphan.--Ipigott (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott thanks for reviewing again. To address the orphan tag, what do you think of adding her name to the following lists:

There are a couple of sub-lists where she could fit here:

List of University of California, Berkeley alumni in business or List of University of California, Berkeley alumni in science and technology

If you agree, would you add her name? I prefer not to make any edits because of my COI. Let me know what you think! Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) BINK Robin (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page has unfortunately had a lot of problems conforming to Wikipedia's policies. The first time it was nominated for deletion many of the accounts that voted against it were sock puppet accounts. After the sock puppet accounts were banned, the deletion nomination was approved. Now a PR firm on behalf of Sonita Lontoh is trying to reinstate the article for a second time. The history of this page has been littered with COIs and violations of wiki policy. So forgive me if I don't seem overly optimistic.

Now, addressing the context of the article itself, I don't see sufficient coverage to counter the concern around notability. The articles you shared, suffer the same shortfalls as the other articles discussed in the deletion nomination: they our softball business expose pieces that don't provide objective and journalistic objectivity to the subject. The new article also faces some of the same issues with the original one that got deleted: the accomplishments and accolades are from tertiary source says that fail to meet journalistic standards, like alumni publications, bios in regional business journals, etc. Ew3234 (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ew3234: I appreciate your thoughtful response. Our team didn't begin working on this project until after the 2021 deletion, but I understand how that history was harmful to future conversations. I'm committed to this notability discussion being open and because you've already put a good deal of effort into discussing the topic, I wanted to ensure that I included you.

I think we have two different things to talk about at this point, notability and content. For the sake of keeping the discussion organized, I'm creating two subsections for those topics below. Thanks again for taking the time to review and discuss this article! Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Ew3234, I'll take a look through additional sources and come back with a few more to discuss, keeping your comments in mind. To help guide my search, what would you like to see to show notability at this point? I always enjoy learning how other folks evaluate sources. I generally look for at least 100 words of original reporting before I consider a source to be potentially useful for demonstrating notability.

@Ipigott: I'm curious to hear your take on notability and sources, as well, since you found her notable. BINK Robin (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BINK Robin: There now seems to be enough coverage in independent sources to warrant mainspace. I would suggest you wait at least a couple of weeks before you make any further suggestions. It will be interesting to see how other editors react.--Ipigott (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott Okay, I'll sit tight for now and see how things look after the weekend. Thanks again! BINK Robin (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content[edit]

Because this article is now in Mainspace, I won't make any direct edits. Ew3234, I'll take another look through and propose changes here based on your comments so far regarding tertiary sources. If there is any specific content you'd like to call out, or other sources currently in the article that you don't think qualify for inclusion, let me know. BINK Robin (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]