Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meryl Dorey

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)

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 reliable 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)

• Strong delete. 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)