Talk:Angie Epifano

question: Subjects notable only for one event

I certainly think this case is an important one, but I worry that having an article dedicated to Angie Epifano is in conflict with the WP:BLP1E policy. If she is notable for this single event and seems to have, outside of publishing the essay and speaking about it directly, tried to keep a low profile, then I think as part of the presumption of privacy we should not dedicate an article to her biography, but instead redirect to the relevant section of the Amherst College article, or to a separate article on the topic. Npdoty (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That certainly was a concern I had before reading all the sources. The writing of the essay in the fall of 2012 was only the beginning of an ongoing process that is influencing college campuses. She is still speaking to this issue and pursuing a federal complaint. So, while there was an event we can point to, it started a notable series of events in her life, which are still receiving coverage. I am One of Many (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm still concerned that this is in violation of the policy. I think her essay and subsequent discussion of it are important, no doubt, but should we have a biography of her personal history? I can't find any news (or any updates to this article) that refer to anything besides the single essay and speeches/interviews directly afterward. I would rather we integrated many of these citations into the relevant section of Amherst College regarding handling of sexual assault. (To my earlier point, it sounds like, via a Twitter account, that the subject was very excited to have a Wikipedia article about herself, so I'm less concerned about the privacy issue now.) Npdoty (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What is particularly notable about her is her personal experiences. There is no other documentation to support what she writes happened to her. The sources document her influence from 2012 through 2014. For an article to be considered problematic with respect to WP:BLP1E, conditions #1, #2, and #3 must be jointly met. Condition #2 is not met because she has given talks on the subject, so she is not low profile. Condition #3 is not met because her experiences that she wrote about have had significant policy impact and I even heard her name mentioned about a month ago on NPR in this context. I am One of Many (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. You're probably right: seeking out press interviews alone apparently makes someone not low-profile (Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual) -- although, the BLP guidance says "otherwise remains a low-profile individual", does that "otherwise" mean outside the context of the event? And I seem to find conflicting advice in these pages: Wikipedia:BLP1E#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event, Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event, Wikipedia:PSEUDO#Pseudo-biographies. PSEUDO says we shouldn't fill out other information about the subject's life, but then also hints that in that case there shouldn't be a separate article at all. Notability(people) says we should generally have articles on people only if the events are significant enough to have a separate dedicated article, but BLP1E says any non-low-profile individual can have an article.

In any case, I'll try to spend my time on adding citations and content to articles about the related events (at Amherst College, on a list of colleges/universities under investigation for Title IX, etc.). I trust your judgment regarding this article. Npdoty (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

For many if not most BLPs, a notable person is notable for one or mainly one thing. Sustained interest in the person for that thing and the impact of that thing is what makes them notable. When I decide to write a BLP, I first consider reliable sources. Then I look for either of two things. Did the thing they did have a significant impact? If so and I find it interesting, I'll write an article. Was what they did sustained? Did they become a higher profile person? Did they receive sustained coverage over months or years? In the case of Angie Epifano, both criteria appeared to be satisfied and I found her story interesting. In Epifano's case, the personal detail, which was in reliable sources, seemed important because it was her writing about her experiences, which was the starting point of her notability, so adding the context in which she reported these experiences seems essential. I am One of Many (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)