Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meryl Dorey

Meryl Dorey

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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?

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

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)[reply]