Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meryl Dorey

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, then redirect to Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network, where there is already plenty of information about her. I will watchlist the redirect to see if it needs protection. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Meryl Dorey

Meryl Dorey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article on an anti-vaccination activist. I think it unlikely that it will ever have any content unrelated to the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network, and if it does it is unlikely to look like anything other than a hatchet job - Dorey is not a nice person. My personal view is this should be a redirect but that was reverted. Reverting a redirect on the basis of one credulous source is not a good idea. So I think thie article needs to be deleted and the redirect restored, per WP:COATRACK. It's also concerning that the main editor of this article has few contributions to any other topic and displays signs of ownership. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment A search for "Meryl Dorey" returns close to 20,000 results so this alone is significant. Dorey is no longer president of the AVN but will most likely continue her anti-vaccination stance. While the redirect has been in place it has discouraged people from editing a page on Dorey. The page needs time for different editors to contribute to as most pages do. Surely deleting a page because it is just beginning is not justified? Also, the AVN may be around for a lot longer than Dorey so will the redirect still be in place long after Dorey is gone?Exazonk (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

They divide into three broad classes: antivaxers bigging her up (100% of which are unreliable sources); skeptics eviscerating her bullshit (95% plus of which are not reliable sources); and media sources which are really about the AVN. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Seems to me that the usual way we determine notability is significant coverage of the individual in secondary independent media. Not interviews, not fluff pieces, but significant coverage of this person as a person. It seems to me that's the standard of work we have to find. Whether they are "nice" or not is not something we can be swayed by here. Here is one this in the SMH, there may well be others. JMWt (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That is the sole source the article currently cites. It is uncritical. The issue is that sources that do exist (e.g. [1], [2], [3] are really all about the AVN - she has no notability independent of AVN, which is why a redirect is more appropriate . Guy (Help!) 10:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the measure is not whether or not it is critical, but whether it is a secondary unrelated source. The thing that we're trying to find out is whether there exists already notability for this person, and we look for significant coverage beyond the brief and passing. The fact is that the media do report on this person as an individual, that there are significant profile pieces of this individual and so on. In fact there are also other significant mentions of her in books and academic papers as being significant together with a large number of shorter news stories. The fact that they are or are not on the page currently is irrelevant. They can't just be rejected as being "all about the AVN". JMWt (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

So if you are a famous member of a band but you are not notable for anything other than the band then you shouldn't have your own wiki page but instead only be mentioned on the band's wiki page?Exazonk (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Define "famous". Dorey has a certain minor notoriety, but is unlikely ever to be featured in the Dictionary of National Biography. The lack of notability can be seen very simply: the article contains one source, which could have been written by her PR, and nothing whatsoever about her use of legal thuggery to silence critics, her misuse of AVN funds, the court cases she's lost, her attacks on the parents of children who have died of preventable disease. The problem is that she and AVN were synonymous for a long time. Only recently have they separated. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm just amazed at how much push back there is here about Meryl Dorey. When I first started the page on MD back around 2009, it was taken down within two hours because of the living person policy not because the page was not true. So, I then started the page on the AVSN and I went through significant problems trying to keep it up because people didn't seem to want to know the facts about how damaging the AVSN was back then. I was accused of lots of things. But now look at the AVSN page it is a wealth of information about how the organisation damages society - that is it consolidates facts from all over the internet. The MD page should be the same, consolidation of facts about MD. Who are we to try and tell people what they should and should not read? If someone wants to read up on an infamous person who used to run a damaging organisation then let them. If they want to know when she was, born, where she lived and why she went down this anti-vaccination path then let them. If the redirect is put back in place then so be it, it will then just be this irritating recursive link that people click on that then loops back onto itself. Exazonk (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

So a Dorey WP page seems to be a 7 year project of yours? Best to just let it go. Was opposition to it before, still is now. Just like Dorey, this page will just blow up in our face, be a lot of hard work, constantly shifting, duplicitious and attract narcissists. Gongwool (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Strong delete and redirect back to AVSN. There's nothing nice to say about this person, as the sources say. But there are unrealistic WP gatekeepers trying to turn this into a feel-good article restricting it to nice comments only - that can't work. So should never have been redirected from AVSN as all cites related to Dorey's misbehaviour are related to AVSN. It seeems like the page was set up as an attempt to whitewash AVSN from Dorey's previous leadership misdemeanours - that won't wash. Delete it and restore the redirect back to AVSN asap. Thank you. Gongwool (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"There's nothing nice to say about this person" is not a standard we can use for pages on wikipedia. JMWt (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly my point JMWt. So it needs to be deleted. All activities relate to AVSN. And shes no activist hero as other sources attest to Exazonik. Gongwool (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that you are reading far too much into this Gongwool as WP is all about credible information based on reliable sources expressed in a NPOV. Your talk of whitewashing and nice comments is not reflected in the the few lines present in the article. As mentioned below, more biographical information needs to be entered but this will come in time as more editors find the article.Exazonk (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think Dorey may well qualify as wikinotable although editorially I tend to favour not having a separate article unless there is some substantial biographical information. So, I shan't !vote on that aspect. However, it is entirely inappropriate to have the name as a red link and at the very least we need a redirect to Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network The redirect could be protected subsequently if, hypothetically, this turned out to be necessary. Thincat (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

So is there a time limit on how quickly substantial biographical information has to be put up?Exazonk (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No, there isn't. I would have left the article to develop and I think it was unhelpful to have nominated it for deletion when the nominator considers it should be a redirect. The nomination is an example of activist editing. These matters should have been sorted out at the talk page, not here. However, if this were to become a redirect I would suggest building up the material in draft or user space before seeking to recreate the article. Thincat (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BLP? This is why we have Draft space. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you added a link to WP:BLP as in a nutshell it says this, "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." Can you please explain how this page has violated this? It seems that the deletion notice was possibly added in haste when a discussion on the talk page would have been more productive?Exazonk (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Questions to ponder? It seems that the logic for the deletion notice is something like this, Dorey is only notable for the AVSN and the AVSN page covers that quite well and if a Meryl Dorey page existed it would mostly intersect with the AVSN page. This is true, but it doesn't get around the problem of where biographical information on Dorey should be placed. The bio information can't be placed on the AVSN page as that is about the AVSN so really it needs to go on the MD page but if the page is changed to a redirect then it can't go there. It really does seem that the only logical thing to do is to have a MD page even if it is small as we need some place to put the bio information and details about her life - even if her life is not that exciting. The logic of stating that a person is only notable for one reason and thus they should not have bio information seems irrational to me? Hypothetically if the MD page is taken down and bio information is added to the AVSN page, would this invalidate another WP policy as surely this will happen? Secondly if biographical information is taken off the AVSN page does this mean that WP won't allow bio information on an extremely notable person?Exazonk (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Why should biographical information on Dorey be placed anywhere? Born in america is mildly interesting, but all the horrible, stupid and unintentionally hilarious things she has done are under the umbrella of AVN. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

So you would be in favour of deleting all the biographical information of horrible, infamous, notable people? Exazonk (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It depends. We have an article on the homicidal homeopath Dr. Crippen, because many books have been written about him, but people who commit murder would typically not get a biography, there would instead be an article on the murder. Adam Lanza is a redirect tot he article on the Sandy Hook shooting. The source with which this article was created appears to be the only actual profile of Dorey and even that is largely related to her AVN activities. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

So the article on Martin Bryant shouldn't really exist as the majority of the story is covered in the Port Arthur massacre (Australia) article? In relation to the one source used for the MD article, it would be improved in time as other editors contributed. The article isn't being considered for deletion due to accuray though but rather that the AVSN article covers most of her history and she isn't notable for anything else. The subjectivity of this topic is interesting in that I thought WP was supposed to be from a NPOV but the general atmosphere here seems to be more subjective. Exazonk (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

In my view, no - but see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• delete yes. Lol, i can see where this is going thanks to those who made page. All the reported repulsive stuff about her will go to avn page if her fan allows it. And the few snippets of non contravery reporting will be kept here. Lol, unbalanced joke of a wp page it will be. Did the person who first undircted the diversions' and made this page consult with others first? Umm, NOJewjoo (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC) II

• Delete and merge reliably sourced content as needed. She does not appear to be notable outside of her activity with AVN. Chrisw80 (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network, as she's not notable outside of that context. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC).
  • Redirect to Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network. She is only reported in the context of one thing. LibStar (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network as per comments above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2016 (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.