Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary K. Greer

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. The greater weight of the discussion was that there was insufficient truly independent coverage of the subject establish notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary K. Greer

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

While Greer has authored a number of books, the only non-shopping site, non-blog coverage of her is this obscure coverage. Falls short of WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. The Dissident Aggressor 17:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete falls far short of notability requirements for authors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and John. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Why should I have a User Name?. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. and above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jim-Siduri (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with the conservation of bits, but this passage, had you read it, would have helped you make a meaningful contribution instead. It's not a vote. Care to elaborate on your insightful opinion or is it in the cards? The Dissident Aggressor 05:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at Her publications list she obviously has been published a lot. Women of the Golden Dawn: Rebels and Priestesses (1995), is a noteworthy book and at least one review exists. Just because one doesn't like the topic she writes on and/or no one has sufficiently beefed up the article is not a reason to deleted it. It's a reason to put a "needs more refs" tags on it so those who want to ref it can. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Just because one doesn't like the topic she writes on" is an absurd statement to make!, We as far as I know !vote on evidence of notability (or lack of) ... Not whether we like the topic or not!, As for references - I found nothing as per –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - published author that has international appeal, furthermore someone's lack of SEO has never been a compelling argument for me. Our ease (or lack thereof) of finding references about someone is irrelevant. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't really hold with tarot cards and all that stuff, but she is widely published so notable enough for an article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This additional reference tips the scales in terms of GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC).
- Well, this is a personal website of a random tarot lady. What is the reason to think she is an authority? She does not even have a wikipedia page for us to delete. :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although it certainly needs improvement, her books are widely available in libraries. FWIW, I don't do tarot cards. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Weak delete. I searched 10 SERP pages, didn't find much, except maybe this source. I am unfamiliar with a rule that if an author publishes X books, they're automatically notable; they still have to pass the WP:GNG which requires multiple in-depth nontrivial independent sources; just not seeing it here. References to "The Tarot Lady" -- not a WP:RS. That there is a list of her books on a Wordpress site doesn't really qualify for GNG but I am willing to change my view if others can provide sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Note: change to undecided based on comment below.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ ~~Keep~~ (I updated it.) This book (Psychics and Mediums in Canada) appears to be WP:SIGCOV. Dundurn Press appears to be a reputable publisher. I don't know about the multiple part. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC) The Back in Time Tarot Book: Picture the Past, Experience the Cards, Understand the Present is more than trivial coverage and I think Hampton Roads Publishing Company is WP:RS as an imprint of Red Wheel/Weiser/Conari. See Red Wheel/Hampton Roads Publishing. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In universe publications fail WP:NFRINGE, Second Quantization (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all clear that WP:NFRINGE applies to the notability of an individual person: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Note that the demarcated list of "theory, organization or aspect" does not include a "person". There has actually been much discussion of this. See RFC on the scope of WP:FRINGE (no consensus) Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Archive_18#RfC_on_the_scope_of_WP:FRINGE. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote per reasoning of Mkativerata below. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~Keep~~ - although I myself think that tarot is bullshit, but it seems she is definitely notable in this stupid domain, i.e., she is not a loonie with some individual kookery, but a significant person in a major kookery of our society. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed, after some thinking. None of the cited references come from something which may verifiably considered to be an authority in this domain. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the external link to her blog Mary K. Greer's Tarot Blog should be taken out of the body of the article because to me it seems mostly a sales site for her DVDs, workshops, books etc. Just my view. I'm kind of surprised this is considered keepable. Parabolooidal (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Websites of the person/business which is the subject of the article do belong to the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - ok, but according to Wikipedia:External links, they shouldn't be in the body of the article. Parabolooidal (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Counting [1] as a reliable source is an embarrassment to whoever proposed that. So is proposing that writing lots of unreliable books makes someone notable. No coverage in reliable sources equals not notable. The keep arguments are empty. If you want to say she meets a specific other criteria, the guidelines are there for a reason (WP:AUTHOR WP:NFRINGE). Second Quantization (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all clear that WP:NFRINGE applies to the notability of an individual person: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Note that the demarcated list of "theory, organization or aspect" does not include a "person". There has actually been much discussion of this. See RFC on the scope of WP:FRINGE (no consensus) Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Archive_18#RfC_on_the_scope_of_WP:FRINGE. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFRINGE doesn't add any additional constraints that aren't already there in policy, it is simply discusses the policies in the context of a fringe subject so that what one should do is clear. I was involved in that discussion (a lot; Ctrl+F IRWolfie-). The RfC didn't make any sense in what it was talking about, WP:FRINGE applies where fringe theories are being discussed wherever that may be. The wording of "a fringe subject" stuck but it was current practice anyway. If a person is notable because of involvement fringe theories, then WP:NFRINGE applies. If a person who is involved with fringe theories is notable for other reasons than this, then other guidelines apply (just like every other notability guideline). Second Quantization (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Staszek Lem and Second Quantization. Also, this isn't a reliable and independent source. Parabolooidal (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFRINGE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The one page or so entry in this book is the closest thing to significant coverage that has been presented in this discussion. Let's assume for the moment that that page or so constitutes significant coverage. Is it a reliable source for our purposes? In my view, no. The book is called "Psychics and Mediums in Canada". The large part of the book - Chapter 15 - is a set of profiles of psychics. The main purpose of the book is to help people "find a reputable practitioner" (Chapter 13). Chapter 1 states that the profiled psychics are "among the most highly regarded psychics and readers in Canada". The book is, as said above, "in universe". It is not reliable, as it not truly independent of the subjects it covers. The reason we ask for significant coverage in reliable sources is to ensure that the article that is the product of that coverage is itself reliable. That can't be done here. The principal source (and sources) presume that, and promote, the subject of the article as a reliable practitioner; any article we have on the subject thus, inappropriately, risks doing the same. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this is a very persuasive argument and it is independent of applying WP:NFRINGE, the text of which does not explicitly apply to the notability of an individual person as opposed to "a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory". Accordingly, I strike my keep !vote above. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a lot of the Keep !votes make arguments such as "widely published, therefore notable", but what makes someone notable is third-party, reliable, and significant coverage. There is none of this for Greer. Fails WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:27, 10 August 2014 (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.