Talk:Candace Dempsey

Not Notable

This writer has, to my knowledge, published just ONE book.

The handful of interviews mentioned in this article were all done in an effort to market that ONE book.

Apart from this lone book, the writer seems to have little more to show than an amateur blog (on the same subject as her one book) and a scant smattering of freelance work (a few articles on travel, cooking, etc.) despite the passage of 2 or 3 decades.

It is clear that this is not a case where a writer has completed many notable works, each of which has attracted media attention.

The designation, "notable" becomes meaningless if this article is allowed to stand. MalibuSurfKing (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Malibu, Dempsey is a journalist who became known for her work in the Meredith Kercher murder. Her "Let's Talk About True Crime" column was hosted by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer; it wasn't a personal blog. Jim1138 and I explained to you last year how to nominate the article for deletion if you want to, though it would almost certainly be kept. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I do not appreciate the fact that you are continuing to undo my edits without explaining, in detail, your reasons for doing so.

Irrespective of the issue about "notability", I removed several sentences that were not supported by secondary sources - why have you restored material citing primary sources (the author's personal webpage)?

Furthermore, as I have stated repeatedly, this writer has published only ONE book and it was just one of many written about the Kercher murder. Contrary to your assertion, she does NOT have a "column" at the Seattle PI, she has an amateur "readers blog" in which readers of the Seattle PI write for other readers (the Seattle PI expressly disavows responsibility for the content for this reason).

If I recall correctly, Jim1138 was of the opinion that I was correct to assert that Dempsey is not "notable".

If you undo my edits again without providing a suitable explanation - including an explanation as to why you are allowing material that cites primary sources to stand - then I will have no choice but to report your actions.MalibuSurfKing (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Malibu, as you may know, Dempsey has been the subject of harassment because of her book, and I'm concerned that your sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to have her removed from it. I'm therefore going to ask an admin to consider blocking your account if you remove material again. As I've said before, if you believe she's not notable enough, you're free to nominate the article for deletion. You may also want to read our policy on biographies of living persons at WP:BLP. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Harassment? I don't understand. I have made changes elsewhere and plan to make many more contributions in many other areas in the future as time permits.

Why are you not addressing the details? I'm eager to learn the ropes.

I have explained my reasons for each change and you have repeatedly undone them with either no explanation or a poor one based on factually incorrect information.

Please address each one of the edits you chose to undo and provide your reasons.

I am new to the game and am willing to learn but what you're doing seems irrational. PS I like your idea about contacting an "admin" because I do not understand why you are refusing to explain, in detail, your resistance to my edits. Can you please advise this newcomer as to how I can approach the admin as well? MalibuSurfKing (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Slimvirgin seemed to explain it pretty well above, you are clearly not listening. You need to read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Heiro 02:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I am listening. All I got was a vague reference to harassment and a factually incorrect statement that Dempsey had a "column" at the Seattle P.I.. (according to the P.I. she is an amateur blogger - just a reader writing for other readers - and they expressly disavow responsibility for the content of said blog).

Per the information you posted: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if...it is not unduly self-serving... [and]the article is not based primarily on such sources."

It is my submission that this case meets the test for "unduly self-serving" and the test for "based primarily on...press releases [in connection with the one book this person has published] or personal websites."

Do you disagree? If so, why? MalibuSurfKing (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The background for any editor looking at this: in September 2012 MalibuSurfKing tagged the article once for notability, [1] tagged and blanked it once, [2] and prodded it once. [3] He has now returned to remove some of the biographical material, and is reverting when it's restored.

Malibu, the article complies with our BLP sourcing policies, and it's in a standard format for bios of this kind. In your latest series of edits, [4] you removed a link to her 2012 New York Times article and her 2011 Slate article, but we often link to people's works. You removed that she's been interviewed by CNN, BBC etc, but it's standard to include this in bios. You removed part of the background section, listing where she has worked; this is sourced to her, but again this is standard in biographies. We don't send out teams of Wikipedians to check that someone really did go to a certain school or work in a certain place. You removed the "Selected works" section, which again is standard.

If you feel there's a notability issue that can't be resolved, please initiate the deletion process, which is explained at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Slim: You make it sound as if I'd come here to vandalize a single article on a single subject rather than make contributions to the quality of this encyclopedia on a variety of subjects.

I simply spotted what I see as a problem (this journalist is not "notable" by any objective measure) and, being new to the game, I attempted to solicit opinions/ advice on the "talk" page. No one replied, so I turned to the "Tea House" and received what I took to be support for my assertion that this journalist does not meet the test for "notable" and proceeded to take steps to have the article removed. I readily admit to being uncertain of the steps entailed and have no doubt made some mistakes but I do not understand you unwillingness to 'shepherd the weak/new to wiki' through the process.

Is this a 'personal' matter for you? You certainly seem to be taking the matter personally, often removing all of my efforts without so much as a word of explanation and, now, you seem to be accusing me of being part of some effort to "harass" the writer. FYI I am not part of any such effort, nor am I aware of any such effort. Many books have been published on the Knox case and this is but one - a modest seller at that and the obscure award that is mentioned appears to come from a cheesy website that, if I'm not mistaken, can be influenced by votes from the friends and family of authors.

IMHO, none of the writers/ journalists behind the many books and blogs on the Knox case come remotely close to being "notable" in their field. Nevertheless, at least 2 of these journalists (John Follain of the TImes and Barbie Nadeau of Newsweek) are far, far more accomplished than Dempsey yet they do not appear in the pages of this encyclopedia. Why is an exception being made for an amateur blogger with just a smattering of freelance pieces and only one book with modest sales to her credit? MalibuSurfKing (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Continued edit warring on this article will result in the article being protected from editing (and possible administrative action against the warring parties). Please resolve disputes here on the talk page and be sure to keep in mind Wikipedia's WP:BLP policies. Arguments about notability should be kept to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candace Dempsey. Kaldari (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is this a Wikipedia Article? Article inserted for book promotion. This article must be deleted.

Candace Dempsey is not a significant journalist, other than on this case. Other, serious journalists, who work full-time for major publications, who have covered this case and written books; for example Barbara Nadeau, do not have a Wikipedia article. This article has been set up by Dempsey or promoters of Dempsey. As a long term reader of Wikipedia I am sad to see the site being used for book promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.149.50 (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)