Talk:Elizabeth Austin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on November 10, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Episcopalian

Her article at faithfuldemocrats.com, posted Aug. 27, 06, “I’m an Episcopalian” was used to support her religious denomination. A person.s own posting is considered a reliable source for information about her own life, and her religion is pertinent to her book about religion and some of her other published writings. It is not mentioned as a claim of notablility, but as other relevant info. Edison 14:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from user talk

The sections were removed because they cited an online community web site "FaithfulDemocrats.com", which is generally not used as a reliable source-- even if it is the author writing about herself. Further, in biographies about individuals, neither ethnicity nor religion are appropriate for emphasis, unless they are specifically relevant to the subject's notability. See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies). In this case, Ms. Austin is not notable for being an Episcopalian; she's notable for being a writer. Similarly, apart from perhaps Mormon writers and Jewish writers, you won't find religious affiliations listed for other biographies of authors. Finally, not all edits require use of talk pages. Remember, editors should be prepared to have any article to which they've contributed to be edited mercilessly. Regards, --Leflyman^Talk 07:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Again, her being an Episcopalian has no bearing on her notability; if that's the basis of the article, I would likely consider it a candidate for AfD.--Leflyman^Talk 07:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly one does not become notable by virtue of being an Episcopalian. But in her case, she is an author of a couple of books and numerous articles in mainstream national publications. That gives her notability. Given that an individual is notable, other facts of her life become worthy of mention. As an example, given that Larry Craig is a Senator, the fact that he sings in an amateur barbershop quartet is apparently notable and encyclopedic, but he would not get an article just by singing in the quartet. An author or other celebrity who has notability sufficient for an article may then be entitled to mention of his birthplace and birthdate, his college, his spouse, his children etc, none of which are sufficient in themselves to justify an article. Edison 07:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think you're still missing the point: being an Episcopalian has nothing to do with her notability on Wikipedia. This is simply commonsense and borne out by the standards presented in other bios. Whether another article includes a trivial mention of membership in a barbershop quartet has no bearing on this particular inclusion of religious affiliation. It's simply not appropriate here, and I'm surprised by how much you are contending it has some importance to her article. I'll repeat: whatever her religion, it is not notable. Further, the blog-like entries (which you refer to as an "article" above) she made on FaithfulDemocrats.com should not be included/sourced here, as per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons:

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:...

It is relevant to the person's notability;

--Leflyman^Talk 16:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: the comparison with Larry Craig's barbershop quartet "The Singing Senators" further fails as it is referenced to a Wired magazine article about the group, which included John Ashcroft and Trent Lott -- making it rather notable for inclusion.--Leflyman^Talk 16:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP:"Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." (emphasis added).Thus her posts at Faithfuldemocrats.com or other blogs or online publications by her CAN be used as sources of information about her. Being an Episcopalian is not a controversial or contentious issue, or in any way an allegation of disreputable or libellous material. I really do not see why that is an issue. Given that she is notable on the basis of her writings published in Washington Monthly, and the mainstream publications, then information such as her family life, being a Girl Scout leader, or her writing about her Christian beliefs is what takes it from a bare stub to a more complete article, just as would be the case for any other author or journalist who has an article here. She wrote a religious book, so her religion is an important part of who she is. It is not the case that only the barest listing of things which make someone notable can be included. Please compare this to the article on author, journalist and commentator William F. Buckley, Jr. where his politics, his family, and his religion are discussed.Edison 17:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I edited the article to give less prominence to her religious life, per Leflyman, although I think it is less interesting this way. Edison 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)