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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Stith

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Consensus was recently formed not to have an article on Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipedia is not consistent because the world is not consistent. Attempting to make it more consistent than the world it's describing is a mission inherently doomed to failure. Document, don't worry about consistency - David Gerard (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - way more notable than me. (Very happy to be a redirect, thank you.) Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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[1] 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|^(talk) 18:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Whilst the nomination is pointy, it may have a good point. The woman is notable only for being president of the branch of an organisation. We don't even have an article on the branch. Sure, she's quoted in the media, but the quotes are not ABOUT her. Most people who serve as media spokespeople for organisations get quoted (see David Gerard) that doesn't make them notable unless they become the story. There's no evidence that this woman has. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but as it stands I don't think there's a case for this article (except for the fact that Wikipedia hates Scientology). Can you show me any source ABOUT her?--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is clearly notable in her executive and public position with the cofs. BTW, I never heard of David Gerard until well into my editing experience on Wikipedia. Stith can be found quoted in many articles about scientology. Actually, I think that comparing the notability of Stith to Gerard is bizarre.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is. But to return to the point, can you give me any sources about her? If you can, I'll reconsider my opinion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so hung up on that if the article is verifiable and if she is deemed notable by criteria other than the WP:GNG? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea about the "GNG" - never read such things. However, if we allow bios on the strength of "is used as rent-a-quote" in the media, then we'll have bios on the spokespeople of every middle-level organisation, and particularly controversial ones. That would make little sense. Such people should be mentioned in the article about the organisation it at all. The differential between someone who is simply rent-a-quote and an independently notable person in that the independently notable person has media interest in themselves. They have at some point become the subject of the story. It is also when that happens that we get genuine biographical information in our sources (as opposed to personal information which happens to be used as anecdote in passing). That's why I ask for sources about her, if we don't have those all we have is a private person doing a media related job and not the subject of a bio. Do we have such sources or not?--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient sourcing by our std guideline.DGG (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Std guide? Can we please debate this article here, rather than quote acronyms that even long-established users like me have no idea about? Unfortunately remarks like this make the deletion process sound like a exclusive club with obscurantist rules. Can you be specific on what the sources are, and how they meet my question, or point out why my argument is wrong? I'm genuinely willing to be convinced.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About as notable as David Gerard. RMHED (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2008 (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.