Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Galt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. There is insufficient notability demonstrated for inclusion.. - Philippe 23:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Galt

Melissa Galt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Does not establish notability with reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Content can be summarized in one line in each of the articles on Frank Lloyd Wright (section on family) and Anne Baxter (section on personal life). Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Reconsider, still delete - I was also asked to take a second look based on additions to the article. I still maintain that Galt is notable enough for a mention in each of her relatives' articles, using the Tribune source. I also believe her knack for getting her name mentioned in so many places may eventually lead to her actually meeting the notability requirements, so I wouldn't be surprised if over time there is enough for an article, but not today with what has been provided. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP I believe the references to be legitimate and valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surftrip (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP I have read many of your edits and your discussion page. seems the only time you even bothered to come Wiki is to make sure this article doesn't make it and I actually feel like you are shadowing me on here. I feel this particular article is notable and I have said as much on your home page. Artsojourner (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I am sorry if I come across as aggravated but I would not have spent as many hours putting this together if it was just going to be wasted. Your last 7 edits over the last 4 days were only for this article.
Dont you see that Galt is the brunt of the American Media? Once a source gets wind that she is related to all these famous people they run with that. This is a commodity to a writer trying to draw more readership. This famous stuff gets attention and mainly draws the attention away from Galt herself. She has a published author, a radio show personality and numerous articles clutter the airways. Also, she is usually the keynote speaker in many of these venues and yes the other people who speak at these venues may not be famous or have a Wiki article about them but they aren't the dadgum keynote speaker now are they? Give Galt a break. She bylines in airlines brochures. What more do you want? Artsojourner (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Well cited, notability established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CredoFromStart (talk • contribs) 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability is not established, and most of the sources have nothing to do with notability. I'm not really seeing any coverage in secondary sources other than what is in the article now. Six of the sources simply point out that Galt has degrees and is a member of professional associations. Two establish that she is a certified life coach and a member of a speakers' bureau. Two establish that she has famous family members including her mother. Literally none of those 10 sources does anything to establish notability (which is not inherited, incidentally). The only coverage in a secondary source is the Chicago Trib article, but that is extremely trivial coverage as the article only mentions Galt briefly along with half a dozen other people. Our notability guidelines at WP:BIO note that "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." That is the case here - the coverage is secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability and thus we should delete the article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Just pointing out that I, like others, was asked by Artsojourner to reconsider my delete vote after some changes were made. I have and I stand by view, which has been bolstered somewhat by DGG's comment below. Galt has some vague notability, but not enough to warrant a Wiki article as far as I'm concerned.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep appears notable as a designer, relationship to FLW is a bonus. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Neutral I don't follow all of what DGG mentioned below but I believe he has a valid point and knows what he's talking about re: the books. That said, there appears to be a possible hint of coverage in the award that I haven't seen disproven and we don't know if it's notable so I'm going neutral TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 00:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • There are more sources than I noted, should have searched more carefully, but in all of these GNews archive stories I see only two stories (both in the local Atlanta paper) that seem to go beyond briefly quoting or vaguely mentioning Galt. One of those stories seems to be more about the fact that Wright was her grandfather and another that Baxter was her mother (i.e. the stories are just as much or more about Wright and Baxter). As HokieRNB notes, the relationship to FLW or Baxter does nothing to advance notability. So I see more trivial coverage, but still not enough to pass the notability bar (it's getting closer though).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:N, both the Google hits and the relationship to FLW are meaningless. As a "creative professional", this person is not regarded as an important figure, is not widely cited, is not known for originating a significant new concept, has not created a well-known work, and has not been the subject of an independent book, film, or multiple articles. What aspect of the notability guidelines is being asserted? HokieRNB (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • These? " Lifestyle designer Melissa Galt, whose work has appeared in magazines including Southern Living and Better Homes & Gardens" source, " Top honors went to home designer Melissa Galt, owner of Linea Interior Design Inc. in Atlanta. T" (source), as a keynote speaker, "In her keynote address, national speaker Melissa Galt will encourage personal development, as will the remaining breakout sessions" (source). How's that for a start? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment - I didn't see any of those referenced in the article on Galt. Are these really what would pass for substantive, non-trivial coverage by reliable, independent sources? HokieRNB (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Response they don't need to be in the article to establish notability, they need to exist, and be added. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Winning an award at an Atlanta Home Show is hardly notable, nor is speaking at a non-notable conference. Multiple examples of her work in Southern Living and Better Homes & Gardens might be enough to establish notability, depending on the context.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
        • It's a win, that she got reliable source coverage of, per WP:N, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. * "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2] TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I've won awards - many people have. It's not uncommon for those awards to be mentioned in local media. That award does not add anything to her notability, and I can't even get a hold of the original article on Nexis to see what she actually won. There are more articles not in the Google News archives which are in the Nexis database which could add to the notability of this person. Most are rather trivial mentions though. Galt seems to be fairly effective at getting her name in print, albeit usually briefly. The issue in the notability policy you cite Travellingcari is significant coverage. In the last 20 years there seem to be several dozen articles which mention Galt (again this from Nexis). A significant number are talking about her mother, great-grandfather, or godmother (Edith Head - those stories go back to the 1980s); most give only cursory mention to Galt or her work, and a handful of brief pieces (basically published in Atlanta) discuss Galt and her work in some detail. A lot of the stuff in print reads more like adverts for Galt and her company (thinly disguised as news, as is often the case in style sections of papers) so I'm still not sure that she has received enough significant coverage, though I'm more on the fence at this point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP She may be related to famous people but that seems to be secondary here.I suppose if I were Anne Baxter's daughter I would have to let others know. I just read that she did a by-line for one of the major airlines for May. I think Continental. OneMarkus (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I am reading the discussions on this article and I see quite a bit of notability here and sure more to come. OneMarkus (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Looks like she could pass notability, but I don't really see it yet. There's a lot of arguably self-promotional name-checking in the news, but not much that constitutes substantial coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment We read that Galt speaks nationally on topics such as "Designing a Signature Life," "Don't Wait for a Mate, Feather Your Nest Now!" and "Designing a Signature Lifestyle." To which my one-word reaction is "Yuk!" Not that I blame Galt, who's as entitled as any of us to make a buck, but rather the paying booboisie. Oh, right, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ¶ Well, above we read of various claims for notability. So go ahead and insert them; I'll decide then. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Weak delete' changed to Delete,see below for explanation. what is asserted is not notable. But how we are to actually decide this for careers like hers' except by personal impressions, is something I dod not know. The rule that 2 RS is enough makes sense only if the RS s are to something that is actually significant. DGG (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. With respect to her, she's not really significant. Now, had she been the daughter of John Gault, then......... (I know, I know). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bigtimepeace. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Dont you see that Galt is the brunt of the American Media? Once a source gets wind that she is related to all these famous people they run with that. This is a commodity to a writer trying to draw more readership. This famous stuff gets attention and mainly draws the attention away from Galt herself. She has a published author, a radio show personality and numerous articles clutter the airways. Also, she is usually the keynote speaker in many of these venues and yes the other people who speak at these venues may not be famous or have a Wiki article about them but they aren't the dadgum keynote speaker now are they? Give Galt a break. She bylines in airlines brochures. What more do you want? This is reaaded down here from the top for better readability. Artsojourner (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
unfortunately, as I explain below, not even the media were fooled--the Tribune article almost totally ignores her. And what you say here cannot be verified: I see 2 keynote speeches, not many; I see one weekly podcast, not cluttering the airwaves. .DGG (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a novelty to me: posting a paragraph at the top and bottom of a thread for extra effect. So you say that being related to famous people helps her draw more readership but draws attention away from her. You've lost me right there, I fear. Just what are these venues at which she's the keynote speaker? Do these keynote speeches attract any particular attention? Is she a "lifestyle coach" or a "life coach" and what does either mean and who is Marcia Wieder (or Weider)? If Melissa Galt is "where life comes together", what the hell does that mean? At least one friend of mine -- he gave me his old pushbike (thanks, John!) -- has a byline in airline magazines; should I write an article about him too? -- Hoary (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed this issue on your page. I realized after I added it that it felt lost at the top and didn't feel it appropriate to delete it at the top so I added it to the bottom. This was NOT for extra effect so please don't assume this add in a negative way here. Artsojourner (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Changed to delete from weak delete. I was asked to re-evaluate, so I took a more careful look. What is asserted: 1/ she taught courses in what looks to be the extension program at Emory--"Change Your Interiors, Change Your Life" is not part of an academic program. 2/ She was trained a a "life-style coach" by someone who in turn claims herself as an expert in a self-written bio in a conference program 3/she's given self-help lectures at various venues in various states and is listed as giving such lectures by a speakers bureau. Further, two individual ones of them were keynote lectures at meetings claimed without evidence to be important. 4/she's a member of a number of trade associations 5/she does a weekly podcast 6/she published 2 articles in trade publications. 7/ 3 books are mentioned: a/ I can not find the first book in any library catalog, just in amazon. b/the second is a book about 49 interior decorators in 180 pages. she is one of them Only 8 libraries have it. It's about Georgia, but only one of them is in Georgia. c/the third is also only as one of numerous people included--a vanity publisher & again, almost no library has it. has 8/she's included as having contributed 2 one-sentence quotes to an article in the Chicago Tribune about descendants of Frank Lloyd Wright. "Being a nonconformist," sourced there, is what she is reported saying about the family fort he two sentences she is quoted in the long article, not what anyone says about her. The article says nothing about except that she's an interior decorator, while it talks at some length about other members of the family. In short, this is an elaborate article about no notability. Having two non-notable careers--or even more--does not make someone notable. DGG (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Changed to delete from weak delete. I too was asked to re-evaluate, so I also had a more careful look. DGG's comments fairly evaluate the person/article so I see no need to make a further list. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2008 (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.