The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meade Emory[edit]

Meade Emory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article of a recently dead person is quite simply a Scientology-related WP:COATRACK. Proded, but contested by User:Cirt.

The individual is not notable. The bio tries to pad out anything approaching notability (including putting nice but cliched remarks from obituaries in the lead) to justify the article - in order to have somewhere to put the Scientology bit.

Looking at the facts:

• Fails WP:PROF. He was a professor at Washington school of law, and wrote a couple of articles in journals. That's just typical.
• He was the first president of the Seattle Chamber Music Festival. If you check the source, you'll find him mentioned once - and although he was the first president, he was not the initiator of the enterprise. Our article on this local group of concerts rightly doesn't even mention him.

Now to the Scientology stuff.

• He was not a Scientologist - so the link is weak.
• The obituaries on which the article's notability is based DO NOT EVEN SEE FIT TO MENTION IT!
• One book (a recored of US tax cases) [1] lists him as one of five people who founded and "incorporated" the non-profit, which holds some of Hubbard's copyrights. That leaves his involvement unclear - was he acting simply in a legal capacity, a tax advisor, or just for profit? How long was he involved?
• The Scientologist (so not a disinterested source) makes clear that the CST is not a religious body. Only really of any note because it came into the possession of some L.Ron Hubbard's copyrights.

Some of this stuff may belong on other articles, none of it justifies a biography.Scott Mac 09:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete His main "claim to fame" in the article is sourced by a website run by people in Free Zone (Scientology), who are Scientologists who reject the official Church of Scientology. This is hardly a neutral or reliable source. As the nominator said the article, and this source as well, seem to be using Professor Emory as a "coatrack" for conspiracy theories. He does seem to have been a somewhat distinguished person, although probably not up to the level of WP notability. If the article is kept the information on his minor connection to Scientology should be removed since it is not covered in any depth by any reliable secondary sources. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with comment - as rewriter. The nomination is flawed, as is the above. However the article may have started, the subject's main claim to notability is not the scientology matter which is fringe to his biography. It is not his academic status and legal accomplishments either (lawyers, tax advisors and professors are ten a penny, so are local festivals and their board). It is the recognition in reliable sources that he was considered a significant individual in the life of Seattle. Very few people comparatively get an obituary in a mainstream newspaper (Seattle Times), that is a good sign his life was noticed by the wider world. Being a lawyer, professor, and tax expert does not get an major paper obituary. Not many get a second obituary authored in these kinds of terms by this kind of individual. The conclusion is that he was noticed for real by the wider world, and he gained significant attention in multiple reliable sources independent of him as a result of this - classic WP:GNG. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, no. This is a coatrack on a (at best) marginally notable person that has existed for POV purposes since its creation five years ago. Throughout that five years it has had badly sourced information on a (then) living person - maintained by Wikipedians with agendas. In five years no one has challanged that or cleaned up the article. You now want to argue that because of a few local obituaries we should keep the article? What? So we can under-maintain it for another five years? Experience has shown we can't maintain this. Evidence shows it is remotely notable at best. The sensible thing is to delete it as being too insignificant to be maintained properly on Wikipedia. It is time for us to allow marginal stuff like this to go. We can't maintain it, and it can be abused - and in this case we haven't maintained it and it has been abused. Strong delete - a few obituaries isn't enough.--Scott Mac 18:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. An article's origins don't carry weight. It's irrelevant whether an article was started as a neutral page, self-promotion, or coatrack. If the topic subject meets our criteria for inclusion and sources we clean up and include it, if they don't we delete it.

1. "This article started as a coatrack long ago" is not a reason to delete.
2. I like/don't like scientology is not a reason.
3. "It gets edit warred" is a very poor reason, for extreme cases only, and often the reason it was edit warred was that it was badly written. A rewrite often fixes that. We don't delete just because of possible warring. (Also noting its page history this article was not edit warred much if at all, ie no evidence of a maintenance issue)
4. "A few local obituaries" does not characterize the evidence. The obits in this case are both good evidence of the exact spirit of WP:GNG - that the subject was noticed in the truest sense by the wider world, where most were not.

Leaving it there. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, that the origins of an article ought to be irrelevant. However, five years of experience says this is unmaintainable due to its low level of interest. It is quite simply irresponsible to keep an article in view of that, and unnecessary at this low level of notability and interest.--Scott Mac 18:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "unmaintainable". It wasn't highly edited, which is the same as most articles. It was poorly written then left in that state and there wasn't much editing or edit warring so it stayed in a poor state. Now it's fixed. But it was never a contentious edit warred article. Just never properly checked out and written. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:PROFESSOR, the subject has been a professor and academic at multiple institutions, with influential published works. Passes WP:NOTE, subject has received significant coverage from multiple WP:RS secondary sources. Excellent work by FT2 (talk · contribs) to research, source, and improve the article. -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF. His academic credentials were high caliber but I can't see our criteria being met. (Which criterion were you thinking that he meets?) WP:GNG is the key here, not academic and not scientology coatracks. His ordinary life, and the significant evidence of exceptional notice being taken of it by the wider uninvolved world was the key. That notice was not due to his academic skills or any cult coatrack, but due to his activities in Seattle culture and society. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of compiling his additional publications. -- Cirt (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as we do not need more Scientology coatracks. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the scientology sentence was removed, it wouldn't change his meeting WP:GNG. I think scientology's a minor and red herring here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: - In the midst of doing some additional research. Meade Emory contributed multiple articles to The New York Times. Over 30 results for secondary sources showing up in LexisNexis. -- Cirt (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: I have added some additional secondary sources to the article, as well as expanded the list of a sampling of the subject's published works. See this version. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable, per his activities, writings, positions, and coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete far too much about far too little here. It's a strained attempt at an anti-scientology coatrack, and that's about it. (The only "source" making the sceintology connection is "Tax Notes Today" a trade publication.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're writing a biography of someone, and the obit in a taxation journal (of all things) says that's what he was probably "most widely known for" in his profession, it might just be worth noting without being a "coatrack"? If there is a coatrack issue, can you point it out and let's fix it. But that's content not notability. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What it's saying is he was involved in a court case that got a flurry of publicity. So if he was known by the general public for anything at all it might have been that. Of course, he wasn't known for that. And how do we know? No one, anywhere, outside from the scientology obsessives, has ever seen fit to comment on it. This man lived a fairly private life, the obits should be allowed to speak for themselves, without the wikipedia defamation machine wielded by a few priviledged editors allowed to grind on over the living and the dead. The whole thing is sickening. I just paid a visit to List of Scientologists and I want to hurl. Are there any grownups left in this place?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Set your personal "hurl" aside (not salient here). This is an obituary, written nearly 20 years after the "flurry of publicity", and it's in a tax journal written by taxation professionals not media hacks or "scientology obsessives". And this obit, written in 2010, says of his professional career, that his work as a tax lawyer for scientology organizations (1980's and 1990s?) was what he was most widely known for. Other sources (IRS included) also make clear he was not a scientologist. Nobody here is trying to say that he was one.

Regardless of any editor's personal views, and regardless how many articles are coatracks, this appears to be the rare case that is genuine - someone who was noticed for their social involvement and life in Seattle, and also noticed by fellow professionals for their professional work with a contentious client organization. We might not endorse scientology but I can imagine its tax exempt status would be a major case as seen by fellow professional tax lawyers. As a reliable source this obituary confirms that they did see it that way. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an issue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After all that rewriting, the main source remains a paid advertisement in the memorials section; the second-most important source is a blog entry. There'd be nothing but a stub if it was removed as it should. Even searching the blogs, his death went completely unnoticed by the specialized tax blogs and normal RS. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR for writing quickly outdated books on specialized legal subjects. This seems to fall pretty much under WP:NOT unless somebody finds something I didn't find. THF (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I looked through the article and sources without looking at the ongoing scientology-related drama. Definitely does not pass WP:PROF. For criterion 7, the subject was quoted a decent number of times in newspapers, but not that much considering a career spanning 30 years. With respect to the other criteria, this article falls far short. The relevant notability guideline is then WP:GNG, which I think the article fails. Obit in the Seattle Times is good, but it looks to be of the paid variety, so not so good. crosscut.com is an interesting source that is right on the border between personal blog (not RS) and newsblog (is RS). Given the lack of clearly reliable sources about the article subject, I cannot support a keep at this time. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I missed any evidence the Seattle Times obit was paid (ie not independent) - where are you looking? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 100% clear, but the lack of a byline certainly causes me to lean towards that interpretation. A lot of newspapers are doing this sort of thing nowadays. I did a quick search and found my grandfather's obit, which was paid for and published in the Washington Post on that same website in the same format. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a statement that the obit was paid, but it looks very much like a paid one. First, at the very bottom, there is the statement that the obit was "Published in The Seattle Times from October 12 to October 14, 2010". The same obit ran for three straight days. When does a major newspaper write an obit and then run it unchanged for three days? If they thought the person was significant enough to receive three days of coverage, wouldn't they write three different stories? Second, a lot of the details seem unlikely for an official obit. For example, "He was an avid book collector, especially books about Western Americana and the Pacific Northwest". This is a private detail which doesn't describe his public life in Seattle. It seems a lot more like something that is found in a paid obit than in one written by a reporter. Because of all these extra details, the obit is long, and seems way too long for something the Times would have written. Third, the wording often seems more typical of a paid obit, such as "many beloved nieces" and "Meade would have liked to express deep gratitude to the people of Bayview Manor in Seattle, who cared for him daily and whom he truly appreciated, as well as the courageous people from Providence Hospice of Seattle". For these reasons, I'd be very surprised if this was an independent obit writtten by a reporter rather than a paid one. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call and have to agree with the reasoning, especially the 3 day publication which I think you found the more likely meaning of. In which case yes. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Since the Seattle Times obit does not appear to be a reliable source, do you (or anybody else) object to removing that obit from the references? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. GS cites are 33, 18, 16, 6, 2, 2, 2, 1 which is not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Does not pass any other categories either. General notability is too slender as well. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak delete per comments by Sailsbystars, THF and Xxanthippe. The Seattle Times piece sure looks like a paid obit which no more represents the views of the Times than would a paid ad by Microsoft. It's interesting that Emory wrote a few pieces for the New York Times, but I don't think that's enough for him to be notable per WP:PROF. As far as the obit by Ted Van Dyk, he and Emory seem to be old friends, so it's not surprising that Van Dyk would write an obit, and that also means that Van Dyk is not in a good position to objectively report Emory's significance. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There has been a good-faith and successful effort to make this biography what it should have been in the first place, while the subject was alive. But looking at it, notability is just too slim. --JN466 14:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think his writings make him notable as well as being a professor and holding a couple of midlevel government positions in my mind combined make him notable. Independently I would say no but together I think makes it to the low end of the notability scale. --Kumioko (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.