Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Stith

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 04:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Stith

Non-notable church executive that has answered a few questions from the press. She has done nothing notable herself. Justanother 13:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: For anyone that thinks that her title of "president" means that she is notable; here are five "presidents of Scientology" just in Massachusetts - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - there are likely hundreds of "presidents of Scientology" worldwide. She is just someone that answered a few questions about the Church, she has no notability herself. --Justanother 16:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the standard notability definition of "multiple nontrivial sources", she passes without a hitch, thanks to the research of User:Smee. Note that the question of her notability has been discussed on the article talk page. Shalom ^Hello 13:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that talk page discussion is well worth reading with two critics of Scientology (Wikipediatrix and AndroidCat) and one neutral party (Steve Dufour) arguing that she is NOT notable. Three critics of Scientology, Smee, Fahrenheit451, and Tilman, argue she is. Thanks for your input. --Justanother 13:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the context of the article when I said that [1] AndroidCat 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her name is mentioned in a lot of press articles simply because she acts as a public spokesperson. This does not make her notable. Lurker (talk · contribs) 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scientology President Heber Jentzsch is also just a PR person, but does also have his own article. --Tilman 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I didn't know that one. If I ever learn all the wikipedia policies, then I might consider studying law :-) --Tilman 15:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an essay, not a guideline or a policy. Knowing which is what is half the battle. :) AndroidCat 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is pretty obvious from the many sources in the article, she is (or was) a senior PR person for scientology, and was introduced in the radio as the "President of Scientology". See also previous discussion here [2]. (Btw, I respectfully disagree that Steve is a "neutral" party). --Tilman 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that I was a neutral party. (I am defending Scientology in order to get the attention of Tom Cruise because I have a movie script to sell him.) Sorry I didn't jump on Justanother's comment sooner. Steve Dufour 17:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Very notable I really don't know why anyone would say she isn't.Callelinea 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable. Detailed, referenced article. —Xezbeth 21:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, very few results on Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been greatly expanded and referenced since I questioned it. AndroidCat 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is kind of weird because none of the sources talk about her as a spokesperson, they just feature her being a spokesperson. It seems to me that her notability must therefore be a product of someone's original research. On the other hand, what the article says seems to be true and doesn't do any harm. I didn't nominate it myself because of this, but since it is nominated I have to vote according to my understanding of WP policy. Steve Dufour 06:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Being quoted a couple times does not make a person notable. What is she 'known for'? What has she 'accomplished' that is notable? Peace.Lsi john 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She is the "president of scientology". --Tilman 15:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, she is the president of one Church of Scientology. There are likely dozens of such "presidents". --Justanother 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article is a perfect example of the unfortunately prevailing mindset held by both Scientologists and anti-Scientologists, that anything connected to Scientology automatically deserves an article of its own. Although the article is copiously sourced, these sources do little but verify that Stith exists. Ask yourself what article you would merge this one into if you had to - and nothing comes to mind. That's because Stith hasn't actually done anything worth inclusion in an encyclopedia. wikipediatrix 14:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a spokesperson doesn't imply notability. SamBC 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and well-referenced.--Fahrenheit451 21:00, 17 July 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.