Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Michelle Stith (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MacGyverMagic (talk | contribs) at 18:50, 22 December 2008 (Michelle Stith). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:50, 22 December 2008 by MacGyverMagic (talk | contribs) (Michelle Stith)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)
  • Keep - way more notable than me. (Very happy to be a redirect, thank you.) Misplaced Pages is not consistent, and that's a feature. I'm sure I and others said this to you in another context something like two years ago - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The notability guideline only really comes in if being verifiable doesn't prove enough evidence someone is notable (hence all the music guidelines and such). Since this fully referenced article claims she's "President of the Church of Scientology of Los Angeles branch of the Church of Scientology in the U.S. state of California." they're clearly notable. - Mgm| 18:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Categories: