Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melody Beattie
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 speedy keep per absence of delete preferences and retraction by nominator (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Melody Beattie
Vanity page, notability not shown with third party reliable sources Scarpy (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless notability can be shown. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Keep agree with Russ. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Delete per nom; only primary sources cited. --Russ (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Changing vote to keep since independent sources have now been provided; the article still needs a thorough rewrite, but that's a different issue entirely. --Russ (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)- Keep – I am sorry if this comes off as sarcastic, however did you check anything before nominating. Just a quick Google News Search shows over 440 third party – credible – reliable and verifiable sources as shown here [1]. In the mean time, I am adding inline citations and references. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk
-
- Comment:Notable people can still have vanity pages. Notability isn't established by searches, it's a quality of the article. If it's not citing reliable sources, then it's WP:OR. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment – Let me get this right, “Notability isn't established by searches, it's a quality of the article”. So in other words, people like Bill Gates, Moses, Mohamed and Elvis are only in Wikipedia because they have well written articles? In addition, I take it you have not reviewed the article since cites and references have been added? Or is it that you do not think that Time Magazine or Al-Anon are verifiable, reliable, creditable or third party sources? Just want to make sure which of your arguments you would like me to address first. ShoesssS Talk 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comments – If by well written, you mean that they don't contain original research, e.g. that they demonstrate their notability by citing reliable sources for the information contained in them, then you understand me. But, you can't just say "Look, topic has X number of google news results so no matter how bad the article is, it needs to say." Al-Anon is a non-profit and does not have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy in it's publications and would not certainly not provide a neutral point on Melody Beattie. Time Magazine would be an acceptable source for this article. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment – I’m sorry, I do not believe I said this topic contained x number of hits, I believe I said; “…. Google News Search shows over 440 third party – credible – reliable and verifiable sources as have shown here [2]…”. Regarding Al-Anon are sure you want to state that; “… does not have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy in it's publications and would not certainly not provide a neutral point.” I believe you will find more than just a few individuals from Schoraly works that may disagree, as shown here [3]. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 02:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm sure about Al-Anon. The number of times an organization is mentioned in journal articles does not mean that organization's publications have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy.
- Search results can be misleading. Google News indexes a lot of non-reliable sources, and not every hit (in fact most hits) for names are usual not articles about the person, but times they were just mentioned in articles on another topic. There a lot of duplicate articles that increase the number of results, but not the number of unique sources. For instance, local papers often run something that was on the AP or UPI. At any rate, the number of search Google News search results is very far from the number of third party reliable sources on a topic. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment – I’m sorry, I do not believe I said this topic contained x number of hits, I believe I said; “…. Google News Search shows over 440 third party – credible – reliable and verifiable sources as have shown here [2]…”. Regarding Al-Anon are sure you want to state that; “… does not have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy in it's publications and would not certainly not provide a neutral point.” I believe you will find more than just a few individuals from Schoraly works that may disagree, as shown here [3]. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 02:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comments – If by well written, you mean that they don't contain original research, e.g. that they demonstrate their notability by citing reliable sources for the information contained in them, then you understand me. But, you can't just say "Look, topic has X number of google news results so no matter how bad the article is, it needs to say." Al-Anon is a non-profit and does not have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy in it's publications and would not certainly not provide a neutral point on Melody Beattie. Time Magazine would be an acceptable source for this article. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment – Let me get this right, “Notability isn't established by searches, it's a quality of the article”. So in other words, people like Bill Gates, Moses, Mohamed and Elvis are only in Wikipedia because they have well written articles? In addition, I take it you have not reviewed the article since cites and references have been added? Or is it that you do not think that Time Magazine or Al-Anon are verifiable, reliable, creditable or third party sources? Just want to make sure which of your arguments you would like me to address first. ShoesssS Talk 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment:Notable people can still have vanity pages. Notability isn't established by searches, it's a quality of the article. If it's not citing reliable sources, then it's WP:OR. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Melody Beattie is a very notable writer in the addictions and recovery field. While there may be considerable debate as to the validity of her ideas on codependency, this does not mean that she is not, herself, notable. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep!!! Why on earth would this be deleted? Isn't inclusion a HUGE part of the very spirit of wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.6.123 (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Subject meets notability criteria, despite low-grade text in article. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 12:54, 26 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.
