Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Grey

Add links
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 per consensus of opinion that this person's body of work doesn't meet notability criteria and that mention of her in Reliable Sources lacks significant coverage, being related only to a single event. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Grey

[edit]
Erika Grey (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)

The bulk of the references are actually just author bios on various websites. The publisher "pedante press" appears to only publish Grey's book making them self-published and not inherently notable. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link in my comment above is a gNews search. It "found no mentions of this book" in any secondary sources. It did produce 1 hit, to an online bookseller. 96.59.153.17, what is needed are WP:RS that discuss & describe the book. things like book reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 18:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This author has been on Coast to Coast AM, at this profile, has authored many books on Amazon.com, and has been cited by The Christian Post in this article. I did not see it, but another editor mentions that she is cited in this article in the New Yorker. (I'm jealous that I'm not as notable!) In all honesty, somewhat borderline, but she definitely makes the grade as notable enough to have an entry and not get deleted, by a small, but definite margin: she has made her mark on the world, and our obligation is to report (not make up, and not out-of-hand "delete") the news. Erika Grey is newsworthy, and thus noteworthy of an entry into an Encyclopedia on the subject on Bible prophecy as it relates to the world's geopolitical developments.96.59.153.17 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete: I don't see any notability criteria giving a pass to people with books sold on Amazon (half the frigging world can say that much), to those who've been guests on CoastToCoastAM, or who've been namedropped in NN publications. Where's the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as the GNG requires? What part of WP:AUTHOR does she fulfill? I don't see it. Nha Trang Allons! 21:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calling the New Yorker an "NN publication" seems a bit over the top. StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, StAnselm (talk), but calling ALL of these in sum-total to be 'no name' publications is even worse: Sure, some are less worthy news sources than others, but the "lesser" news sources do nothing but ADD to the cake. The cake is there, and if there are some so-called 'no name publications,' they are merely icing on the cake: The cake is quite solid.96.59.153.17 (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what defense St. Anselm might give, but I will point out that after having cleaned up the article (and, as I said, above, no, I'm not a WP:SPA: I edit elsewhere, but my IP changes]]), the case for notability or newsworthiness has increased by about one order of magnitude. You can see the article page, and judge for yourself: I may not be perfect, but my edits are all made in WP:Good Faith, and, on balance, apparently helpful & accepted by others, but take a look: This one is worth saving.96.59.153.17 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A number of others have discovered numerous credible secondary sources citing the woman. I imagine more could be found, but that would require Googling and get me a headache. I'll leave it to the experts to find any more sources, if needed.47.192.27.215 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)— 47.192.27.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I just now noticed this: http://www.erikagrey.com/p/events-radio-tv-conferences.html her personal page lists her appearences, and while I can't verify the absolute accuracy of them, the few about which I know, on this list, are correct: She is one VERY BUSY person, and is like "Savoir-Faire," she is "everywhere!". This, of course, does not (all by itself) warrant or justify an Encyclopedia entry, but it sure doesn't hurt. Also, I would add that while she is probably only in some "professional organization" directories or "religious" encylopedias (and hinted by her copious & ubiquitous presence on their online counterparts), her possible absence in a "regular" encyclopedia (say: Brittanica as but one example) is not necessary fatal to her entry here: Times are a changing, and so we must change with them: An online encyclopedia e.g., Wikipedia is (or should be) more inclusive than one you might find in your local public library. So, based on these factors, she seems appropriate here (even if, I admit, not as 'notable' as, say, Dr. Billy Graham).(Google lookup on phrase above and related video - funny!. My 0.02 worth.96.59.160.94 (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There are about as many interpreters of Biblical eschatology as commentators. If PeDante Press really publishes nothing but her work, it is self-published (or effectively so), in which case the article should be treated as a mere ADVERT and deleted. Her two books on beating addiction are both published in the same year, which also does not inspire confidence. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, you raise some good points. I did not know about this aspect of her publishing, but I did a little research and find that NOVEL RANK lists only one book as having been published by them: "The Seat of the Antichrist." However, AMAZON at this link shows a bunch of books, all by her as an author, but every single book in this list has a co-author other than Grey: "by Erika Grey and Lawrence D Palmer" are the authors for one book and "Erika Grey and Lia Frederick" for the rest. The very fact that Amazon lists more then NovelRank suggests to me that these rankers are not exactly comprehensive. (But I would not imagine much would get past Amazon.com. Her authorship, if it were the only thing, might be suspect if she was self-published and didn't sell a lot. But many others think she is an expert, so the book issue is icing on the cake, and not the cake itself. Now, http://www.erikagrey.com/p/events-radio-tv-conferences.html lists her schedule. As I said before, I can not vouch for the accuracy of her list, but in several cases, I did some checking, and all the entries I checked were actual cases where she was a guest. The fact that she is a guest on a regular basis (and not as a "one-time" thing), indicates that many others objectively consider her some sort of expert. Myself, as smart as I am, still, by contrast, I'm very lucky to get ONE letter to the editor, or in rare occasion, a guest column, published. And, I have never been a guest on any program, at least in recent memory. I am lucky to call in, and this is in spite of my brilliance, the fact I've written a book, and also accomplished some very impressive things in the legal field, which was not the degree with which I graduated from college. (It was in other than law; I studied hard biosciences.) So, you see, unless you can put together such a solid record of being cited in tap-ranked journals, or put on numerous shows on a regular basis, then I would not stand on equal ground: whether her views are correct or not is not actionable (tho she does seem mostly accurate, at the least). That many others, objectively, think so, when she makes the TV, talk show, or radio show tour on a regular basis [9], and/or gets cited by credible reliable sources is a valid metric. That she has also books is merely additional, not substantive. (But, ten or so books is still impressive; and I would faint under such a heavy TV talk/radio show, and schedule for conferences, unless I devoted myself singly to that: The sheer volume of her TV/radio/conference appearances indicates that she is no small-potatoes expert, in the objective eyes of numerous news media/conferences/etc. So I scanned a few of her appearances, as I said earlier, and verified as accurate at least those few I checked: I might be stronger, faster, and smarter than Grey in a head-to-head battle, but in her specialty, she is much better than me. Here is evidence (even if not proof) of her notability on this head: others (who invite her HERE on a regular basis think so). This implies notability.96.59.183.125 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)— 96.59.183.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While there is disagreement here, I would point out two things: First, notability is inherent in the WP:RS, not our views of them or the subject of the article. Secondly, a good number of comments, on both sides of the issue, have been discussed on this discussion page (and elsewhere, when you include the talk page, Talk:Erika_Grey, individual talk pages, and even in edit comments. One overlooked point was the lack of comparability between a "physical" encyclopedia, with its inherent limitations on space, and an electronic, or online, encyclopedia. I won't reinvent the wheel, but rather refer to the already-robust discussion above, as required reading material for anyone before they aspire to vote. Also, I do find it odd that nothing has been done, even though it has been slightly over a week since the last or most-recent relisting on the 15th.96.59.177.243 (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)— 96.59.177.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete — fails WP:AUTHOR. Coverage in sources is mostly either trivial, incidental, or one-event. Body of work is obviously self-published and not critically cited. Similarly fails WP:GNG due to lack of extensive, significant coverage. Pretty much at best, as far as attempting to establish expertise, we would have [10], which is solely due to a single appearance (Coast to Coast AM, a show that basically also gives random appearances to the Ancient Aliens/tinfoil-hat/pseudoscience crowd) and is probably de facto a self-published media-release biography. She's admittedly covered in exactly 3 news articles ([11] [12] and [13]) that all popped up at the same time (inauguration), which even more seems to reflect the coverage as, at best, WP:BIO1E (i.e., "you'll never guess what some people are saying about Trump!"). --slakr\ talk / 07:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly as per Slakr. She's a self-published author who isn't truly recognized as an expert in her field, and who has attracted limited attention from non-notable media appearances. The limited coverage in reliable sources appears to have been around the time of the inauguration and has not continued. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erika_Grey&oldid=1068984824"