Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:45, 4 April 2009

Sheree Silver

• Articles for deletion/Sheree Silver
• Articles for deletion/Sheree Silver (2nd nomination)

Sheree Silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Subject fails WP:N, the bulk of references fails WP:RS. Inclusion of this person in WP is just ridiculous. WP is an encyclopedia, and the most popular one at that, would you include someone like this person in an encylopedia? – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Silver - at the very least - passes Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. More specifically, I'll try to explain why. First, WP:Notability says, topic notability on Misplaced Pages is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic — although those may contribute... If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Significant coverage (directly in regards to Silver) is present in the two Wife Swap shows, the GMA Now interview, the Sirius Satellite Radio interview(s), and the feature article(s) in local/national papers. The majority of these sources in addition to the rest of the article's are "reliable," "secondary," and "independent of the subject," also passing ONEEVENT. I might have a personal belief regarding metaphysics, but I'm confident that the sources speak for themselves. While message boards/blogs are generally not appropriate for inclusion in the article itself, I listed a lot of examples of these in Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_14, showing that Silver has been discussed many times by the general public, as well. Before one considers deletion, we should first ask ourselves what is notable. Silver is not a Sylvia Browne, but she's been covered enough to warrant an article. Spring12 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Major cleanup is probably appropriate for the article in the long-term, but I added a few tags for now. Spring12 (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment A mockery of Misplaced Pages. How about other people who appeared at Wipe Swap, do they have WP articles? Mention of this clown's name on so-called references are merely collateral, the article's creator seeks to idiotize us by using them. The only direct reference is subject's website, but obviously fails WP:RS. Portrayal as a "philosopher" is inaccurate as subject holds a philosophy "degree" from an unaccredited diploma mill. The other Wipe Swap folks were also seen by the same number of people, if that is our basis then let us create WP articles for each one of them! A previous unanymous AfD already decided delete, what is this garbage doing here still? – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(Just one note: please don't call the subject of an article a "clown", specially when we are talking about living persons. It just makes wikipedia look bad when outside people read these discussions.) The article was restored because of the DRV here (click on the "show" word to see the archived discussion there). I don't agree with the DRV closure, but it's too late to change it. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Shannon, you have been repeatedly warned to tone down your personal attacks. I think calling the subject of articles "clowns" is a WP:BLP violation. Ikip (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep Foolish enough to be notable, which is why the papers picked it up. DGG (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• keep There are many RSes in the references section that cover her so WP:N would seem be met. ONEEVENT could be argued, but I don't believe it applies here as the coverage spans a fairly wide period of time. Disclaimer: I was canvassed by Sping12. Hobit (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked DGG to join as well, because you guys participated in the deletion review, sorry if I bothered you... Spring12 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• delete We don't consider notable people who has appeared in one chapter of a TV show, and we most certainly don't have a separate article for each one of them. For the rest of supposedly notable stuff, please read WP:PEOPLE#Basic_criteria and the "Additional criteria" section, and explain which criteria she is meeting, because I don't see any being met. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I don't think we should fill Misplaced Pages full of Bios of every person who appears on a reality TV show. How does that add value to the encyclopedia? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

*Weak delete A tough call, but I finally decided that the person doesn't meet notability standards. Owning a private school and appearing on a reality television show doesn't make a person notable enough for inclusion here. 3-rd party sources exist, but there are relatively few. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Changed to weak keep Thought it over, and decided that there are enough reliable 3-rd party sources for this to qualify as sufficiently notable. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. This is reliably sourced, so there's not much else to decide, I think.—S Marshall /_Cont 21:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Painfully reluctant weak keep. If I were King of Misplaced Pages, I would agree with the nominator, and the article needs a real scrubbing, but the WP:N standards are objective, not subjective, and with a rewrite, this article would squeak by under that standard. However, I would prefer a merge and redirect to Wife Swap or List of episodes of Wife Swap. THF (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - sources are weak at best. Shot info (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The vast majority of the references I can find or have been presented are trivial coverage, which does not provide appropriate material for writing an article. That there are several such mentions indicates a likelihood of future notability, but not present. The source to the statement that her book is "award-winning" is Caryn Day-Suarez Publicity Consulting, which would not pass WP:CREATIVE if confirmed. The sources to local newspapers (Florida Times-Union and St. Augustine Record) come close in my judgment, but the one is primarily about local regulation of psychics with a human-interest face, and the other is just a puff piece. Note: Shannon Rose (talk · contribs) notified me of this discussion, presumably because I participated in the last AfD. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Spring12 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• This person hawks "New Age" blather, as do thousands of other right-thinking US-Americans, and she's been on the telly, as have tens if not hundreds of thousands of ditto. She's got something calling itself a "PhD", when tens of thousands have genuine PhDs. Where's the notability? Hang on -- she's been written up in the L A Times! It's not every new-age-monger or self-styled "metaphysician" -- complete with a link to Metaphysics, an article that describes the fruits of seemingly irrelevant hard thinking -- who gets written up there, so let's a look at the linked article. Here's what it says about her: The Silvers, who have two quirky, artistically inclined sons, revolve around the mother, Sheree, who is a psychic and who initially fails to impress Richard. "Sheree's like a clogged drain, OK? Things aren't happening," he barks. (Keeping "WP:NPA" in mind, I refrain from adding the short and uninformative insult of Richard's that follows.) That's all that the LA Times says about her: nothing about her "metaphysical" or other accomplishments. Ah, what else? She's written a book. This comes complete with an improper but for our purposes convenient link to a specific retailer, which rates its sales at #4,351,139 among books, and says it comes from "Infinity Publishing", a new name to me. Here's "Infinity Publishing", which obligingly publishes anything that you pay it to publish. This person's notability (either in Misplaced Pages terms or according to the normal understanding) is infinitesimal. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom, and others. Check out the blather from Spring on this page. He/she has a blatant COI and as long as this article exists it could never be encyclopedic. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Forgot to give an example of the failings of this mishmash. The article makes much of Silver owning a private school, spiritual centre and gift shop. The reference for that says the following "Also since the show, Sheree Silver closed her store in St. Augustine Beach, the Shiloh Spiritual Center and Mystic Gifts and Jewelry shop." Got that, the reference says the exact opposite of what is claimed in the article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed your example (owns to "owned"), what else? Spring12 (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • What is this "blatant COI", and why should it be an issue here? Even if somebody does have a COI, that person can be instructed not to edit and the article can survive. Also, I see nothing intrinsically unencyclopedic about defunct businesses. I'm sure that the article should go, but for neither of these non-reasons. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Hoary, I opposed "per nom and others". I then commented about the author of this article having a COI, which seems to me to be driving the insertion of absolute trivia to this article. Check out this ghastly version largely created by Spring, which I edited. Spring has made 160 plus edits to the article, mainly pushing trivia/pov, and an amazing 16 to this AfD page as well, which you would have to agree shows a dedication to a cause. You queried the "blatant COI". Asked on his/her talk page whether there was COI, Spring replied "I've been helped in the field, but I'd rather not disclose a lot of information in regards to Misplaced Pages:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information." I believe that if this article were kept, Spring would continually modify it so that at no time was it encyclopedic. As well as seconding "nom and others", that is also a consideration IMMHO.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Look, if you see fishy editing of an article, you may suspect COI. While keeping this suspicion to yourself, you then look for evidence outside the article for COI, and, if you find this, you announce your suspicion of COI. By contrast, all you have done is found what you regard as fishy editing. Aside from alleging that the writer has assiduously written up Silver's minor achievements and minor appearances (which any writer is welcome to do, and which strikes me as a bit surprising but not fishy), you've presented no evidence for COI. This is the kind of stuff that's needed for a COI rap. -- Hoary (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete blatantly promotional article with not enough reliable sources about her to satisfy WP:N. ThemFromSpace 03:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Instant reaction is to hit the delete button, but the Good Morning America exclusive interview convinced me of some notability (and sent me ROFL). The interview is not related to the wife swap thing, so it's not 1E. I'm basically on par wih THF. This article lifted my spirits this morning. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm game for some edjication in metaphysics or whatever -- however, I can't see which link this is. -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I think this is the link: . Spring12 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
      • True, sorry for only returning now Power.corrupts (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete What is this doing back again? The list of sources put up in the DRV looks impressive, but includes messageboards and other unreliable sources, and trivial mentions. I was never notified of the DRV, despite being the original nominator for deletion, and if I had been, I'd have deconstructed this list. It should never have been undeleted. I mean, look at some of the items: "this artist provides images of the jewelry store Silver used to own". There's not substantially more notability here than there was before, nor is it at all likely that any more information will be upcoming. At most, she might deserve a mention in the Wife Swap article, but not her own article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Apologies to Shoemaker's Holiday and other original AFD users for not notifying of deletion review, I was not aware of at the time. For this discussion, between the nom. and I, I believe everybody involved in both cases has been notified now. Spring12 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails to make any of our feeble standards for notability and verifiability. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • At the head of WP:BIO it says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I think an interview on Good Morning America and local newspaper coverage are published, secondary, reliable, and independent. Could you explain why you disagree? Hobit (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Being a "good interview" on Good Morning America, appearing on a reality TV show, and being discussed in the local newspaper are not sufficient to make a person notable. Additionally, as others have pointed out, many of the citations in the article are non-WP:RS and/or don't actually support the information in the article. --Orlady (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • At the head of WP:BIO it says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I think an interview on Good Morning America and local newspaper coverage are published, secondary, reliable, and independent. Could you explain why you disagree? Hobit (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Sometimes an article with an unusual subject can deserve keeping because there has been a lot of well-documented attention. However, the discussion at User talk:Kaiwhakahaere#Sheree Silver does not inspire confidence. If Spring12 is going to throw out a whole bunch of marginal sources and hope that some of them stick, it suggests that the case for the subject being notable is still in doubt. The 'PhD in Metaphysical Philosophy' and the comparison to Hilary Putnam is what made me think that Spring12 was on the wrong track, and Spring12 is the main creator of this article. You think I am making this up, but the article says: When Silver first moved to Florida she was not allowed to practice her metaphysical career due to a 1972 county ordinance regarding residential qualification and reputation for fortune-tellers and clairvoyants. Will this person still be important to the readers of Misplaced Pages in five years? Writing a self-published book with a sales rank of 4,351,139? EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ed, remember that Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines encourages discussing the issue at hand (not contributors), and according to WP:Notability "Notability is not temporary." Please evaluate all the info available, not just the book. Thanks. Spring12 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • However, WP:NOTNEWS: "Misplaced Pages considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Although the next sentence of WP:NOTNEWS begins "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event..." which is apparent from the Florida Times Union article, Sirius Satellite Radio talk shows, and GMA Now interview (which do not mention the two appearances on Wife Swap). Plus, the news "Wife Swap" wasn't an "announcement," "sports," or "tabloid journalism" if it was covered by the NY Daily News. Spring12 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm getting more and more confused. I'd thought that the NY Daily News wasn't merely a tabloid but was the first and one of the best known of tabloids. (But perhaps my confusion just results from being young, dim or senile: see below.) Also, and as Eldereft pointed out several centimetres above, the FTU article isn't about Silver; it's about legislation, with her as an example. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Oops, you're right about the New York Daily (I've striked my observation accordingly). Regarding FTU: I know the article isn't 100% "about" Silver, in this context I was just giving it as an example of how she's passed ONEEVENT. Spring12 (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • not allowed to practice her metaphysical career: at least "metaphysical" isn't linked to Metaphysics. Elsewhere, WP's vulnerable (young, senile, dim, etc) readers are provided with such nuggets as In the metaphysics of the "New Age Prophetess", Alice Bailey, in her system called the Seven Rays which classifies humans into seven different metaphysical psychological types, the "second ray" of "love-wisdom" is represented by the color indigo (example from Indigo). Perhaps Metaphysics should be turned into a disambig, a choice between Metaphysics (philosophy) and Metaphysics (piffle). -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Hoary, please remember to be WP:Civil in regards to readers. This is also a bit unrelated to the deletion discussion. Spring12 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I should have added that I don't think all WP's readers, or even the majority, fall into one or other of the classes "young, senile, dim, etc." -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe I'm being elitist, but I honestly can't imagine anyone wanting to read an article about some nobody who appeared twice on a reality television series. What next? An article on the best-looking chick from Studs? -- llywrch (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Certainly. Please see WP:HOTTIE. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • You never watched "Studs", have you? -- llywrch (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Guilty as charged. I had indeed never watched nor even heard of "Studs", which sounded so alarmingly close to a gay porn production that I'd assumed it was a typo for a soap opera unoriginally titled "Suds". (There I was, dreaming of good-looking chicks, partly submerged in bubble baths.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, what's next? My decision rule is if it meets policy WP:V and WP:SOURCES. If the criteria merely was if I wanted to read it, 99+ percent of Misplaced Pages could be deleted: sports, TV series, manga, Harry Potter, Sheree Silver's page; the list is endless. But Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTPAPER. It's the independent media's (weakly) mention of her person that earns her inclusion, not her "PhD in metaphysical philosophy", her spiritual clinic, book, clairvoyance, her discussions with her deceased grandfather, or some of her other colorfull skills. Passing neutral mention of the book does not make it a "blatantly promotional article", perhaps the real litmus test would be if you would be marginally more inclined to buy the book after reading the article, or watching Good Morning America. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This is exactly what Misplaced Pages should not be--a place where people who are within a long-arm's reach of notable for some obscure event use that event to pitch their product, ideology, etc. Vartanza (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom et al not enough non trivial coverage in RS, and entirely non notable. This is merely a promotional page and should be deleted. Verbal chat 08:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough to warrant an article. Brunton (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - article fails to establish notability. Hekerui (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If the article "fails to establish notability," please tag it so. The discussion is whether an article on Silver is appropriate for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Spring12 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Spring12 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC),
  • How is this related to philosophy? -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Silver's a Ph.D. in Metaphysical Philosophy -- Spring12 (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh yes, right, and from the College of Metaphysical Studies, no less. I wonder if her dissertation is available from the usual source. -- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
        • This could lead to Misplaced Pages:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Personal_point_of_view, let's try to stay on topic. -- Spring12 (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Spring12 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• delete this fluff - not a hard call at all. this person has received only trivial coverage - everyone who 'appears' on a reality or talk show is NOT automatically notable. in addition, the sources do not recognize any notability on her part. as an example of the egregious synth and streeeetching that this article does to make her appear notable, take this story used as a source for the statement, "The Silver family . . . received a review of "voyeurism" from the LA Times." The story describes several participants in the show, "Take Myra Chi, (notice the red link?) martial arts mini-magnate, who on last week's "Wife Swap" embedded with the Edwards family, which runs a community theater group on a shoestring" and describes Silver as "the mother . . . who is a psychic." hey, if the martial arts mini-magnate doesn't have her own article . . .  ;) and what on earth does "received a review of "voyeurism" mean?? is it because the word voyeurism is in the title of the story? the whole article is full of this kind of stuff - not notable, full stop. untwirl(talk) 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Those like that Myra Chi you mentioned do not pass ONEEVENT. Silver does. (Two separate Wife Swap episodes, unrelated GMA interview/Satellite Radio interviews, FTU story.) As far as the LA Times ref, it's the closest criticism I've found from a RS. I revised the sentence, does it read any better? Spring12 (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates