Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Pride

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Pride

[edit]
Mary Pride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete Non-notable, fails WP:BIO, and not even the thinnest assertion of verifiability. The article is a walled garden unto itself (complete with self-redirecting wikilinks). Article claims her to be a prolific writer, but of course not every crank author is notable for Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 06:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Her earlier books show a peak amazon rank (for "The Way Home") of #232,909. Her homeschooling books may be more notable, however. Harvest House Publishers is a specialty company with a definate agenda, which may invalidate them as a source, they are not, however, vanity press. Her other publisher appears to primarily publish religious tracts, but is also not vanity press. The most serious issue for me is the fact that only one trivial non-publisher source is given for her. The lack of sourcing does not mean the nonexistance of sources, however, and I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt, but the new community precident, as derived from the AfD for 2, The Ranting Griffon, is that if an author is notable only to a very limited group or set, then they do not merit inclusion. I have to endorse this precident, seeing as given a narrow enough set of the population, anything could be notable. Sources would strongly help salvage the article, but I haven't seen anything so far that would indicate any more notability than any other minor author. Wintermut3 06:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I can think of plenty, yes. But having published multiple books actually does not mean that a person passes WP:BIO, which lays out our notability criteria to meet here. Go read WP:BIO and explain how she satisfies it in any way whatsoever. — coelacan talk — 07:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you explain specifically how it fails? CyberAnth 07:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The main criterion of WP:BIO does not apply to her: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." That's it, and she doesn't fit. — coelacan talk — 07:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how you define, and how you wish precedent set for, a "source independent of the person". CyberAnth 09:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who, me? I didn't write the notability guidelines. There's a lot of room for interpretation by consensus. The answers to your question have mostly been distilled into WP:RS Why don't you read over that and WP:BIO, and then if you think you have something that fits, bring it. — coelacan talk — 09:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can consensus be reached on the matter unless people explain their interpretation. Since you are the nominator, please start out. CyberAnth 09:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I make a reminder, WP:BIO is a guideline. She has had more than a couple of books published. I am concerned that common sense is not being used I am further concerned that the nomination comes not from naturally passing through wiki-articles but from a deliberate attempt to find articles of CyberAnth's to nominate. Comments on her talk page support this. Mallanox 15:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This page is a guideline" does not mean "Ignore this guideline". We have to have some way of establishing notability. WP:BIO is as good as any, and she doesn't meet it. Lots of people write lots of books, but unless they are notable outside their walled gardens, they don't belong on Wikipedia. Example: C. Stephen Evans has "more than a couple of books published", but he doesn't get a page on Wikipedia, because he's still non-notable outside of his little walled garden. As to the nomination itself, please assume good faith on my part. Yes, I was drawn to CyberAnth's user page. But I did not go looking for things to delete. On CyberAnth's user page, I was curious, he had linked to Prairie Muffins and Mary Pride, articles he was apparently proud of. The point of linking to such articles on one's userpage is to get others to click through, right? And I did. And what I found were horrible articles, unsourced, largely unverifiable, and probably unencyclopedic. Now, what was I supposed to do? Should I have backed up and said, "oh, what will people think if I nominate these?" Am I supposed to ignore bad articles just because of who authored them? That seems to me to be a poor choice if I care about the quality of this encyclopedia. — coelacan talk — 02:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CyberAnth, it is not my job to explain the policies here to you. If you're unsure what "source independent of the person" means, you need to go ask at WP:HELPDESK. It is the responsibility of the editor who wants to content to stay up to establish the notability and verifiability of that content with reliable sources. When you think you have reliable sources, show them, and the editors in this AfD can discuss their merits. I am not going to run in circles for you, however. You need to start with a claim to notability. — coelacan talk — 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Reracking the indent)
Coelacan, I think it's important to give CyberAnth the benefit of the doubt here. When I look at the sources, both within the article and without, I see sources that don't successfully meet both prongs of the WP:BIO test. Either the article is not independent of the subject or she is not a primary subject of the article. For example, the School Library Journal article cited below doesn't mention Pride within the article itself, but instead cites her book as an undifferentiated one of many. It only establishes that she wrote a book on subject matter similar to the journal article. Publisher's Weekly and Amazon.com likewise only establish that she's a published author, not that she has "been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." I think she likely merits inclusion within the homeschooling article, but lacks independent notability that can be established by reliable sources in order to justify her being the subject of an article. --Ssbohio 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a merge to homeschooling would make sense, even if she is not notable on her own. — coelacan talk — 18:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've checked for unbiased news sources that have taken an interest in her. Google News has no sources on her, and the only references I could Google seem either blatantly partisan or unreliable. In that it seems impossible to satisfy the verifiability criterion, and that the subject does not assert notability, deletion is called for. The only long-form piece on her that I reviewed was an excerpt from one of her books, a polemical screed against what she terms the Child Abuse Industry which intends to force abortions on children, deny them Christian teaching, and trample parental rights. Either this is the classic example of a fringe author or there is a vast left-wing conspiracy of which I am heretofore unaware. I don't see where the article currently merits inclusion, nor do I see any means presently available to change that. --Ssbohio 07:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article has been significantly improved since this AfD started. Perhaps a merge to Quiverfull would be an option. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A merge would be a good idea. However, your expressed opinion is to keep the independent article. Is there more to the interpretaion? From what I've seen of the improved article, I'm still having trouble seeing the article as overcoming the hurdles of biography, notability, and verifiability criteria in order to merit keeping under deletion policy. I'll go over the first three sources in the article to exemplify my point:
  1. A decade-old journal article about the competition the Calgary, Alberta School Board is facing from religious educators, primarily Catholic schools. Pride is mentioned in passing, including pointing out that her public appearance there drew 400 people.[1]
  2. A five-year-old Calgary Herald article by the same author as source 1. The title implies that the article's subject is the quiverfull movement, but the article's text is password protected and not accessible from Google nor from the Calgary Herald website. [2]
  3. In this 2004 article, Publisher's Weekly surveys books marketed to the homeschool movement. It mentions Pride once as the author of a book, along with other similar authors, and quotes Pride extolling the more ready availability of study guides in recent years.[3]
These are reliable sources, to be sure, but they do not establish Mary Pride in any way greater than her own writing already has. They all agree that she wrote books that are among the canon of the homeschool movement, but they don't focus on her or assert her notability outside of the fact of her being a published author & sometime lecturer. --Ssbohio 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Verfiable and reliable sources do not seem to exist.--RWR8189 10:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not persuaded she is notable because her books seems to come from a minority publishing house, but I'm capable of being persuaded the other way. However, I would like to comment (without accusing anyone) that trying to get CyberAnth's articles deleted because people don't like the way he has been nominating articles about sexual terms for deletion strikes me as a bad way of behaving. Sam Blacketer 10:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - assuming good faith for on sources like "Slatery, Ann, "In a Class of their Own", The School Library Journal, (Aug. 2005 issue)" (which we can't check online) combined with the large number of books she's written (which would argue fairly well for professor-test guidelines; she may publish more than an average college professor, which I'd suggest on average is little or nothing) suggests notability to me. See WP:BIO re: "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor" Tarinth 10:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's "The professor test -- If the individual is more well known...". That's only for professors. The rule for authors in general is "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work."--Prosfilaes 13:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WP:BIO does not actually state that the test is limited to academics. But on a aelated and interesting note, doesn't this rule seem to suggest that around 50% of all academics in the world should be entitled to WP pages, assuming that 50% is what constitutes above-average? Tarinth 14:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I checked the mention in the School Library Journal reference. First, the author of the article is "Slattery" with two t's for anyone else checking - I've fixed the reference. Mary Pride is not mentioned in the text of the article at all, but her book The Complete Guide to Home Schooling is one of five books mentioned in an appendix as a resource with the comments "Written for the entire family, this guide is brief but informative." and "Pride's latest edition should be on all public library shelves." - Aagtbdfoua 14:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if she wasn't the primary subject of the article, then it doesn't count toward the first criterion of WP:BIO. Her notability score is still a big fat zero. Thanks for looking into that, Aagtbdfoua. — coelacan talk — 02:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What it doesn't tell us is anything relating to WP:BIO. Ghits are an indicator to look closer, yes, but what specifically are we finding that demonstrates notability by reliable sources? All I see are "reading lists of home schooling books" after I get past Pride's own self-published website. Gay Nigger Association of America" OR GNAA gets twice as many hits (114,000) as "Mary Pride", but we don't have an article on them, because they're not covered by reliable third party sources. And I guarantee a lot more people have heard of the GNAA than Mary Pride. But, no article. I'm not saying that's a precedent, but it is an example of when Ghits aren't enough for an article. Home schooling is a notable topic, and reliable sources talk about it, like TIME. But where are the reliable sources on Mary Pride? — coelacan talk — 02:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, another non-notable group had a spat with her. How does actually fulfill WP:N? — coelacan talk — 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You would think that would lead to some kind of reliable sources mentioning her outside of that little walled garden, though. Please explain how she fulfills WP:BIO. — coelacan talk — 03:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BIO, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." But both of those articles mention her only a couple of times in passing. So they do not begin to fulfill the notability requirements. — coelacan talk — 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We follow the spirit, not the letter, of the law. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just held a séance to be certain, and the spirits told me she's non-notable. I'll go double check with my ouija board to determine the appropriate letters. — coelacan talk — 03:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following the "spirit of the law" has nothing to do with consulting spirits. Harvardy 05:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. To be serious, it is clear that the spirit of WP:BIO is not "did she do a bunch of stuff?" but rather "was she specifically, deliberately noted by reliable sources for doing the stuff she did?" And that is the spirit that fails to move her. — coelacan talk — 15:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable author within a notable religious and cultural niche. I found at least three independent and reliable sources in the references section which gave substantial coverage of Pride and her books. Nick Graves 04:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Which ones? Because I looked at every one of them that was online and none of them addressed her as their primary subject. Help me out here; specifics? — coelacan talk — 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Google News is not a reliable source for finding news articles. For example, an article in Wikipedia that I am very familiar with, Dominion of Melchizedek, shows nothing in Google News but actually has been mentioned is hundreds of major publications around the world over the past 17 years with articles last year in the Washington Post and the New York Post. Mary Pride is recognized as a leader in her field nationally. Suggest Coelacan use someting better than Google News if he really wants to find the truth. Harvardy 05:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I could try using the citations that the article's author has already put in the article, yeah? But none of them are about her. At best, they mention her peripherally. The cited texts amount to a couple of book reviews, and they don't much care for who the author was. If there's any room for this woman's info on Wikipedia, it should be merged into home schooling and/or quiverfull. She is not notable on her own. — coelacan talk — 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify regarding Google News, I want to point out that there were no Google News hits, so I moved on to Google "Mary Pride" as a search phrase, and the links that came back largely seemed not to be reliable sources. The ones that seemed to be something above blogs, bulletin boards, and newsgroups, either didn't have Mary Pride as a primary subject, or were not independent of her and her movement. I'm an inclusionist at heart, but this person doesn't have a verifiable claim of notability that I can find. --Ssbohio 05:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CanadianCaesar. Most Wikipedia articles have no references at all, so I am not hung up on "primary subject" when an author is at least multiply published and her works are reviewed in major trade journals. Seee how many of the 493 Pokemon characters were "primary subjects" in multiple independent reliable sources. See how many articles are sitting there tagged as unreferenced. Edison 15:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of other articles possibly needing deletion should not dissuade us from deleting any other particular article. Your advice is a council of despair. — coelacan talk — 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The content of multiple references makes me confident you do not have access to some. You might want to go just a tad deeper than the title. CyberAnth 17:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a couple of points about this "keep" opinion. First, the nomination was not based on a lack of references, but on this biography being about a non-notable person. Second, it's not really probative with regard to this decision to discuss other articles that may also fail the same criteria. There are many articles that have many problems within this project, but arguing in favor of retaining one article because others are as bad or worse will only diminish the quality of the project overall. --Ssbohio 05:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete ordinarily i'd say keep this author with numerous publications, but Coelacan is right, we have no reliable sources referencing her, they all reference her books. If anything this article should be stripped down and merged into Homeschooling as her books are clearly popular in that regard, Mary Pride herself not so much. Sorry but them's the breaks.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CanadianCaesar. Notable and widely published author within the homeschooling sphere. Silensor 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at CanadianCaesar's comments above, it's important to keep in mind that the standard calls for the article's subject to have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial articles in independent reliable sources. See my analysis of the first three sources from the article above. The references CanadianCaesar makes are to reliable sources, but Pride is only referenced in passing in those articles, not their subject. --Ssbohio 05:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CanadianCaesar's gut feeling aside, how, precisely, are we to establish notability if she fails WP:BIO? I don't see any helpful addendum like WP:BIO#FRINGE. — coelacan talk — 18:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I disagree with the suggestion that Mary Pride should just be mentioned at the "homeschooling" page instead of getting her own page. That page is already quite extensive, and while it could use a little bit more information about religious motivations for homeschooling, putting mini-bios about every author who is influential in homeschooling would make the page even more impenitrable. So, why is Mary Pride notable? Because she is notable in the community of religious homeschooling, having written notable books. The religious homeschooling community is a large and powerful one, not a small walled community that anyone can be notable in. She has been interviewed by members of that community (although I'm doing a really poor job of getting good links or interview transcripts from google) about her opinions. Mary Pride is notable ONLY as an author, so of course references about her are very much related to her work. The article seems to have put together actual verifiable information about her background in a useful way. It would be non-NPOV to put large amounts of information about this person on lots of different pages about her books or on the homeschooling page. This small, concise article seems like a very good compromise to me.Enuja 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay, perhaps she doesn't belong on any other pages either. That means she definitely shouldn't have her own page here. That whole "I'm doing a really poor job of getting good links or interview transcripts from google" bit is very telling though. — coelacan talk — 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've continued to look around, wikipedia's quiverfull page has a min-bio of her already. But I've rescinded my position that she's noteable as a "homeschooling" personality. It remains quite possible that she's a noteable person in the american conservative evangelical movement at large, althought I can't tell which Google hits and interviews are outside of her organization. I did find google hits of interviews WITH her, it's just that the text of the interviews were not coming up. I changed my "keep" to a "weak" one, as there is quite an effective mini-bio of her already at the quiverfull page. Enuja 01:20, 10 January 2007 (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/Mary_Pride&oldid=1081003749"