Talk:Emily Austin (journalist)

Requested move 21 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Emily Austin (journalist) → Emily Austin – Emily Austin currently redirects to Emily Austin Perry. No need for this MaskedSinger (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). MaskedSinger (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. No rationale given as to why this is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the current target, and the journalist is relatively obscure - she was deleted at AFD two years ago.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  I have no idea why you are being so obtuse and pedantic about this. Honestly I thought this was an open and shut case. I mean - there's literally no one else here called Emily Austin so when I created a page called Emily Austin I thought the logical thing would be that the page be called Emily Austin. As I've already answered you, one person is called Emily Austin, the other is Emily Austin Perry. These are 2 completely different names - why is this so complicated?

  If anything, the latter should be called Emily Austin Perry as it is or Emily Austin Bryan Perry.

  So I think your two points are wp:primarytopic and the AFD are moot and irrelevant but I will address them anyway.

  When it comes to a defining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC the criteria is who are people more likely to look for and who has longer term significance??

  This is where you've snookered yourself - if someone googles Emily Austin - ALL the page 1 results are about Emily Austin (journalist) so they're only going to go her page.

  And if you think about it, it stands to reason that someone is more likely to look for a person who's alive and doing stuff then someone who's been dead for 170 years. Not to say that people who are dead aren't more notable than someone is alive, but I think if you're honest you would say in this instance Emily Austin Perry is unlikely to generate to more interest than this one. It's not like she's Alexander Hamilton or George Washinton. The lifetime views of the Emily Austin Perry is 19 a day so there is minimal interest in her page. In the one full day this page has been up and running, it got 110 views!!

  What is interesting about Emily Austin Perry is that she's actually referred to by 30 different names!!

  Emily_Austin_Perry#Name_variations

  Of which one is Emily Austin - but what you will see is that there's only 2 references for Emily Austin while there's 5 for Emily Austin Bryan, 8 for Emily Perry, 5 for Emily Margaret Austin Bryan Perry, so on and so forth. So of all the variations, Emily Austin is one of the ones she's referred to the least!! .

  So like I've said a number of times already, this was all fine and good when there were no other Emily Austin's but now there is.

  As for the AFD, I'm not sure why you're hanging on to this. A page for someone can be created prematurely and deleted - two years later they win an Olympic gold medal, an Academy Award, get elected President, whatever. The fact that a page went through AFD and was remade later when they satsified notablility is meaningless.

  If it will make you happy, we can redirect Emily Austin (journalist) to, Emily Austin with a sentence at the top. If you're looking for Emily Austin Perry... MaskedSinger (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  110 views is so few that I think it's largely irrelevant especially since I'd expect a bunch of those might be from NPP, people checking it out from the move proposal etc. Also Emily Austin Perry has been deceased for over 170 years so the fact she is still getting 19 page views a day strongly suggests she has sustained noteworthiness/notability and is way more a significant figure than the journalist currently is. The complicating factor is that the Emily Austin is one of many she's know under and it doesn't seem the most common. For that reason, it's IMO fair to say she has less priority for the Emily Austin name, but even with that given that the journalist seems to currently have very low noteworthiness I'm not sure it's enough to give the title to the journalist. IMO either a 2 item disambig or keep it as a redirect to Emily Austin Perry. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  How can you have it both ways? That you say 110 is nothing, but yet at the same time justify that 19 is a lot?!?! I don't understand the mental gymnastics employed when you yourself have conceded that it's not the most common and she has less priority for the name. You're bending over backwards to prove a point that isn't there. Emily Austin isn't Emily Austin Perry. They're two completely different names. Where is the common sense???? I really don't understand what is happening here. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as this one might not even be notable per the AFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  What's with the straw man arguments? I mean seriously. It's bewildering. Am I in a Black Mirror episode? No one is addressing the issue at hand here. AFD isn't the issue here. The page was created and deleted 2 years ago. In the 2 years since, she's done more than enough to establish notability. The issue here is that there's 2 people with 2 different names - Emily Austin and Emily Austin Perry. Sure they're similar but Emily Austin Perry is Emily Austin Perry and now that there is an Emily Austin here, there's no reason for it to redirect to Emily Austin Perry. I would love someone with WP:COMMONSENSE to chime in here. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Emily Austin Perry is the clear primary redirect for this name, whether there's another person by the name or not. The existing hatnote is fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Can you explain why? MaskedSinger (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  No one can explain to me why Emily Austin needs to redirect to Emily Austin Perry in the first place? Anyone who's looking for her is looking for Emily Austin Perry. She was barely known as Emily Austin and even less so today. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  There's John Wilkes and there John Wilkes Booth and John Wilkes doesn't redirect to John Wilkes Booth. On the logic here, he should be....

  What about James Earl? It's its own page and doesn't redirect to James Earl Ray or James Earl Jones or James Earl Coleman.

  So why doesn't this apply here? I would have thought it does. But for some reason, everyone thinks that someone searching for Emily Austin must be searching for Emily Austin Perry. If John Wilkes and James Earl redirected, fine, but they don't and this should be the case here as well. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  There are two differences, John Wilkes Booth was not born with the name (first name and surname) John Wilkes and John Wilkes' notability has not been questioned recently. TSventon (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  So there must be something I'm missing. Given they have different names, I just don't understand what notability has got to do with it? And your point about notability is disingenuous given no one is disputing the deletion of the page 2 years ago. As I already said, a page for someone can be created and deleted - 2 years later they're one of the most famous notable people in the world. The fact that the page was deleted 2 years ago is irrelevant to this discussion, given they have different names.

  And you miss my point - if Emily Austin (a name she's barely been referred to by for 200 years) redirects to Emily Austin Perry, then why not redirect everyone who has a similar name to a more notable person? If it doesn't happen elsewhere, it shouldn't happen here.

  Ill say it again - there is no need for Emily Austin to redirect to Emily Austin Perry. Of her 30 names, this is one of the ones shes known by the least. When there was no other Emily Austin, fine. But this is no longer the case. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Betty Ford is one of the most well known first ladies of all time. Given her previous marriage to William Warren she was also known as Betty Warren/Elizabeth Warren, but yet neither of these redirects to Betty Ford. If you want, I can go on and find more examples highlighting the illogic in opposing that the person called Emily Austin actually have a page called Emily Austin. Does anyone today refer to Betty Ford as Betty Warren. No. Her marriage to Warren finished almost 80 years ago, but yet you're all telling me that people today still refer to Emily Austin Perry as Emily Austin even though she stopped being Emily Austin 200 years ago!!! MaskedSinger (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Betty Ford is a better example, but the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has to be decided by consensus and notability is an important factor as A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. TSventon (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Also telling people they are being "obtuse and pedantic" is not likely to persuade them that you are right. TSventon (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  What does WP:PRIMARYTOPIC topic have to do with it when they're 2 different names? Do I need to say it again? Emily Austin is Emily Austin; Emily Austin Perry is Emily Austin Perry. Emily Austin ≠ Emily Austin Perry.

  As for calling people obtuse and pedantic, it shouldn't matter. If they don't agree with me based on that, it's an undeclared conflict of interest. I'm sorry if I that's out of line but I'm frustrated and exasperated. I honestly thought it was a basic open and shut non-contested non-controversial request. Never in a thousand years did I think people would want Emily Austin to keep redirecting to Emily Austin Perry. I'm just at a loss. And if people are opposed to the move that's fine, but not one person who opposes it has given a logical sound reason. If they had the same name, then yes, notability and primary topic is relevant and one trumps the others, but as they don't, I feel like Galileo arguing about Copernican heliocentrism. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  MaskedSinger, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is relevant because "Emily Austin" is ambiguous: it can refer to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, to Emily Austin Perry (for example see Emily Austin of Texas, 1795-1851 By Light Townsend Cummins, 2009 on Google Books) and to Emily Austin (journalist). You obviously don't agree with the preceding statement, but your disagreement doesn't mean that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC shouldn't be discussed. TSventon (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Is Emily Austin Perry more notable than Emily Austin (journalist)?? I don't know. Maybe? Guess it depends on who you ask. But it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion. What matters if if Emily Austin Perry was actually called Emily Austin.

  Oh you found a book that calls her such - but this is an outlier. Everywhere else one looks, she is referred to as some variation of Emily Austin Bryan Perry.

  https://id.worldcat.org/fast/418673/

  https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n98051994.html - Library of Congress site that doesn't give Emily Austin as one of her variants

  https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/perry-emily-margaret-austin - Texas State Historical Association refers to her as Emily Perry.

  So this isn't about if Emily Austin Perry is more notable than Emily Austin. It's do people now refer to her as Emily Austin. Basically she changed her name and this is how it has to be viewed. Do people use/refer to them as their original name. I brought this up with Betty Ford and Betty Warren but I'm doing so again to make sure it's clear.

  Jamie Foxx is at least ten billion times more notable than Eric Bishop. Jamie Foxx's original name is Eric Bishop but no one calls him that or uses that to look him up. Hence Eric Bishop has his own page that doesn't redirect to Jamie Foxx.

  This isn't about notability. This is about a person who's called Emily Austin 100% of the time vs someone who was briefly called it, but for a long time hasn't nor will be. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per others and long-term significance (WP:PT2; WP:RECENTISM). Emily Austin, of course, being Perry's maiden name before marrying James Bryan (mining executive) and then James Franklin Perry. And as it says at the top of every requested move, please "keep discussion succinct and civil." (See also WP:BLUDGEON.) SilverLocust 💬 23:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date of birth

Per WP:DOB/WP:BLP, don't add it without good sources. It's fine to have the article without. WP-stuff like Template:Birth based on age as of date exists for a reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I just did some research. Is her own instagram post considered a sufficient source? https://www.instagram.com/p/CsoLKO5O-9J/ MaskedSinger (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Good find. You may find Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_48#Tweets_announcing_"Happy_birthday_to_me!_I'm_21_today!" of interest.

My take here: Instagram with blue checkmark, that makes it WP:ABOUTSELF acceptable. However, I wish it was clearer that she actually posted that on her birthday, not say the day or week before. @Valereee, care to have an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

She did. It's timestamped at the bottom. May 24

MaskedSinger (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say that's not good enough. She could be posting this the week or even month of her birthday and calling it her birthday. It could be simply a marketing strategy to gain attention to the post. "Hey, I know what! It's going to be my birthday soon, let's do a promotional post!" Valereee (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Post from the previous year - also May 24

https://www.instagram.com/p/CPQwu7sJZ24/

MaskedSinger (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Even unclearer (though on a personal level, sure, that's her birthday). A WP:DOB cite needs to be solid, and DOB:s are not gold to be mined. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That's the date she posted it, yes. But that doesn't help. Like Valereee says, her birthday could be a week away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

And what about this tweet?

https://twitter.com/emilyraustin/status/1529105984861392898 MaskedSinger (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to update her birthday to May 24? MaskedSinger (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say no. Valereee (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

So there are all these sites that say May 24 is her birthday and every May 24 she posts a birthday post. But yet you're not convinced? What am I missing? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP. Without a very clear cite, exclude. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You contradicted yourself. First you bring up wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_48#Tweets_announcing_"Happy_birthday_to_me!_I'm_21_today!" which on the basis of the posts and tweets should be sufficient than you say there has to be a very clear cite. Her tweet is exactly like the ones brought up in the examples. WP:ABOUTSELF satisfies WP:DOB MaskedSinger (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

All of those allude to it, and as GGS says, it's quite likely this is her birthday. This just isn't for me good enough to use in an encyclopedia article. And her exact birthdate simply isn't important enough to rely on iffy sources. Valereee (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

How is WP:ABOUTSELF an iffy source? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's iffy in this case because she isn't explicitly saying "Today is my 21st birthday". Instead she's saying things like "Ask me for my ID" on May 24, which certainly implies that this is her 21st birthday -- which both GGS and I are agreeing with -- but doesn't make it explicit. And it's not an important enough piece of information for us to be comfortable with when WP:BLPVIO is in play. Valereee (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

ok. thanks for clarifying! MaskedSinger (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Today is May 24, her supposed birthday and she just twitted

https://x.com/emilyraustin/status/1794001345235796018

What says you? Satisfied that May 24 is her birthday?

Furthermore as indicated by the tweet, born in May 2001.

File:Emily Austin twitter.png

MaskedSinger (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

What is a "Jordan year"? But yes, IMO "Happy birthday to me" is good enough. Of course, it could mean she just found a wallet in the street. But still, in context, I'm fine with it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Aha, that Jordan

Jordan was #23, so MS is saying she's clearly saying it's her 23rd birthday. Meh. For me it's still iffy, but I won't object. She's clearly not an idiot, she must realize she could get doxxed by one of her 40K followers. I'm not sure why the obsession with adding an exact dob, but whatever. Valereee (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. But now we can move on to her blood type. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I added this to her page. Thanks for your help. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. And create dab page. – robertsky (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Emily Austin (journalist) → Emily Austin – Current page for "Emily Austin" is a redirect to "Emily Austin Perry". Since the beginning of the year, the journalist averages 359 page views (median of 212) and "Emily Austin Perry" averages 18. The journalist should have the base, non-disambiguated page name with a hatnote to "Emily Austin Perry". Debartolo2917 (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Debartolo2917 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Opening discussion on this potential move. Again, I cite my reasons from above.Debartolo2917 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, per the same reasons given in the last RM. On long-term significance, the 19th century Emily Austin seems more long-term relevant than this one. I wouldn't object to having a disambiguation page at the Emily Austin page, but not an outright swap of primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Amakuru. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support, No suprise here, given I died on this hill the first time round. You can read my essay , my megillah , my reasons above. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, but move Emily Austin to a DAB. I'm inclined to think that Emily Austin Perry outstrips the journalist's long-term significance, but pageviews are also part of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC determination process, and the journalist has a clear lead in those. I think it's best to assume WP:NOPRIMARY for now. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would support changing the redirect Emily Austin to a disambiguation page for now. SilverLocust 💬 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.