Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Gray (2nd nomination)
- 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Stephanie Gray[edit]
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Stephanie Gray (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 was kept in 2009, with three out of the four keep !votes being the same person, TRATTOOO. We have become better since then at distinguishing genuine independent sources from churnalism and PR, and we're now a lot more discerning about biographies based on sources which are largely about the one notable thing a person did. All the genuinely independent sources here are int he context of her participation in Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. None of the sources about "Love Unleashes Life" was independent (e.g. the Amazon sales page, never a great idea). Overall I do not think this meets WP:GNG. Google finds 127 unique hits for "Stephanie Gray", mostly either unrelated or promotional, and only 16, including this article, for her married name. None of them is what I would consider sufficient to justify a standalone biography. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Guy has removed reliably sourced information from the page in an effort to facilitate a tenditious deletion discussion without first discussing this on the talk page. I have restored the reliably sourced information back to the page. Stephanie Gray Connors has recently been married, and she is notable for her prolife work in Canada and the United States. She was notable earlier, and has added additional work over the years with her Ted Talk and the conference in Mexico, as well as the book she has written. All of this information was removed by JzG|Guy. I would suggest that a better venue for this would be on the talk page, which is what the talk page was designed for. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- That is a patently bad-faith reading of their edits and I think you owe them an apology. The edit summaries explicitly addressed the suitability of the sources: "all from primary sources" [1], "We need secondary sources, especially for obviously promotional claims. Amazon sales pages are exceptionally bad sources for book authorship." [2], "per Western Standard, wthis does not seem to be a reliable source" [3]. TompaDompa (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Is the claim that Stephanie Gray did not author that particular book? All the source is claiming is that yes, she did in fact author that particular book. There are additional sources that can be cited to show this and I am happy to provide those sources. Amazon was simply the quickest way to do so. As for the Western Standard, that's going to have to be taken up elsewhere. Western Standard is a source for western Canadian politics. There are source references to MacLeans, and to the National Post within the article as well, so these are just two of the smaller sources. As for the rest, reliability has to do with the claims that are being made. It's appropriate for the earlier portion of her life that this appear in the more local paper the BC Catholic. The issue with the removals is that they ALSO removed the link to the Ted talk, the talk in Mexico as well as the debates, etc. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- "https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30619397-love-unleashes-life" She is credited here as well. https://books.google.ca/books/about/Love_Unleashes_Life.html?id=x7AqjwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y, again, https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/love-unleashes-life/author/stephanie-gray/, etc. Amazon is simply used because that was the most convenient. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Benkenobi18, for a book to be notable, it needs reviews by independent specialist reviewers in reliable sources. Not publishers' blurbs, user-generated content or sales pages. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- "https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30619397-love-unleashes-life" She is credited here as well. https://books.google.ca/books/about/Love_Unleashes_Life.html?id=x7AqjwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y, again, https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/love-unleashes-life/author/stephanie-gray/, etc. Amazon is simply used because that was the most convenient. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Is the claim that Stephanie Gray did not author that particular book? All the source is claiming is that yes, she did in fact author that particular book. There are additional sources that can be cited to show this and I am happy to provide those sources. Amazon was simply the quickest way to do so. As for the Western Standard, that's going to have to be taken up elsewhere. Western Standard is a source for western Canadian politics. There are source references to MacLeans, and to the National Post within the article as well, so these are just two of the smaller sources. As for the rest, reliability has to do with the claims that are being made. It's appropriate for the earlier portion of her life that this appear in the more local paper the BC Catholic. The issue with the removals is that they ALSO removed the link to the Ted talk, the talk in Mexico as well as the debates, etc. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Benkenobi18, no, I removed poor sources. Check my user page, source quality is my major interest on Wikipedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- That is a patently bad-faith reading of their edits and I think you owe them an apology. The edit summaries explicitly addressed the suitability of the sources: "all from primary sources" [1], "We need secondary sources, especially for obviously promotional claims. Amazon sales pages are exceptionally bad sources for book authorship." [2], "per Western Standard, wthis does not seem to be a reliable source" [3]. TompaDompa (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Guy has removed reliably sourced information from the page in an effort to facilitate a tenditious deletion discussion without first discussing this on the talk page. I have restored the reliably sourced information back to the page. Stephanie Gray Connors has recently been married, and she is notable for her prolife work in Canada and the United States. She was notable earlier, and has added additional work over the years with her Ted Talk and the conference in Mexico, as well as the book she has written. All of this information was removed by JzG|Guy. I would suggest that a better venue for this would be on the talk page, which is what the talk page was designed for. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete Half of these sources are completely unreliable and rely on original research. The other half are feasible but probably aren’t quite good enough to put her into general notability. Trillfendi (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Keep The first eight references are very low-quality and useless, apart from one, The National Post. There is nothing really in-depth that I can pinpoint, but she shows up in a lot places, which is surprising and worrying. Perhaps due to her spreading the word which is perhaps indicative that is more the work, that is getting reported on, rather than on any inherent notability. scope_creepTalk 18:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Scope creep, yes, but always in connection with Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. There are no substantive biographical sources - and every time content gets reinserted it's always from primary, affiliated and/or unreliable sources - e.g. gave a talk here, source, video of talk. With most grifters there is independent coverage (cf. Jacob Wohl). Here, not so much. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A relist to give another week for sources to emerge but the consensus is currently to delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: A relist to give another week for sources to emerge but the consensus is currently to delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. WP:BASIC not established, and clearing out the history of this controversial BLP would seem reasonable so that, if someone did want to recreate in the future, they would have to clearly establish notability for the person without relying on the weak sourcing currently in the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- 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.