| Revision as of 16:35, 22 December 2008 editIkip (talk | contribs)59,234 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:50, 22 December 2008 edit undoCrotalus horridus (talk | contribs)Rollbackers7,850 edits responseNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Consensus was recently formed ]. Now I've seen this article mentioned at ] and it seems to be no better founded. Yes, Michelle Stith has been quoted in a variety of reliable press sources (as David has), but she hasn't actually been the ''subject'' of any such coverage as far as I can tell. In the David Gerard AFD, ] and ] noted that the sources cited there were primarily about Misplaced Pages, not David himself. Well, the same applies here: all the sources are not really about Michelle Stith, but about Scientology and the controversy that surrounds it. ] 15:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | Consensus was recently formed ]. Now I've seen this article mentioned at ] and it seems to be no better founded. Yes, Michelle Stith has been quoted in a variety of reliable press sources (as David has), but she hasn't actually been the ''subject'' of any such coverage as far as I can tell. In the David Gerard AFD, ] and ] noted that the sources cited there were primarily about Misplaced Pages, not David himself. Well, the same applies here: all the sources are not really about Michelle Stith, but about Scientology and the controversy that surrounds it. ] 15:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong keep''' as the nominator mentions, a variety of reliable press sources mention this woman, Crotalus is attempting to carve out an exception to ] verifiablity and notability that doesn't exist. ] (]) 16:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | *'''Strong keep''' as the nominator mentions, a variety of reliable press sources mention this woman, Crotalus is attempting to carve out an exception to ] verifiablity and notability that doesn't exist. ] (]) 16:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :*I would be very interested in seeing a definition of notability that would include Michelle Stith but not David Gerard. They're both practically the same case: individuals who sometimes appear in the papers, but only as spokespeople for an organization and not as article subjects in their own right. A good argument could be made for keeping both, or for deleting both, but not for keeping one and deleting the other. ] 17:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:50, 22 December 2008
Michelle Stith
AfDs for this article:- Michelle Stith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Consensus was recently formed not to have an article on Misplaced Pages's David Gerard. Now I've seen this article mentioned at a request for arbitration and it seems to be no better founded. Yes, Michelle Stith has been quoted in a variety of reliable press sources (as David has), but she hasn't actually been the subject of any such coverage as far as I can tell. In the David Gerard AFD, User:Uncle G and User:Friday noted that the sources cited there were primarily about Misplaced Pages, not David himself. Well, the same applies here: all the sources are not really about Michelle Stith, but about Scientology and the controversy that surrounds it. *** Crotalus *** 15:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep as the nominator mentions, a variety of reliable press sources mention this woman, Crotalus is attempting to carve out an exception to WP:V verifiablity and notability that doesn't exist. travb (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would be very interested in seeing a definition of notability that would include Michelle Stith but not David Gerard. They're both practically the same case: individuals who sometimes appear in the papers, but only as spokespeople for an organization and not as article subjects in their own right. A good argument could be made for keeping both, or for deleting both, but not for keeping one and deleting the other. *** Crotalus *** 17:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)