Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mikm (talk | contribs)
2,646 edits
No edit summary
Line 80: Line 80:


*'''Delete''' I find the article to be heavily self promoting. [[User:Myomoto|Myomoto]] 09:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I find the article to be heavily self promoting. [[User:Myomoto|Myomoto]] 09:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or a rewrite by a non-biased author. The article in its current state seems to be self-promoting and there is little to suggest that she has any notability w/r/t the feminist movement. Her candidacy for president doesn't make her significant, especially considering it hasn't been covered by any independent source yet. As the 2008 US election nears, her candidacy might be more significant, but that doesn't warrant an article about her now. Assuming that ''Seelhoff v. Welch'' is as notable for homeschooling as the article suggests, it would be better to have an article on the case instead of her. '''[[User:Mikm|<span style="color: #36393D;">mi</span>]][[User_talk:Mikm|<span style="color:#B02B2C">km</span>]]''' 16:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:09, 7 August 2007

Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff

Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Autobiography, subject of only minor notability. Article written entirely by User:Heartsees2, who is almost certainly "Heart" aka Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, blogger and webmaster of Women's Space and The Margins. This individual runs a blog that is well-known within the radical feminist community, was editor of a small homeschooling magazine, and is US Presidential candidate for a tiny political party, the Free Soil Party (no connection with the pre-Civil War party of the same name). I strongly doubt this constitutes sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. However, I will hold off on casting a delete or keep opinion before reading the opinions of other editors on the subject's notability. Iamcuriousblue 00:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, looks like she has a lot of small to medium claims -- which to me, would equal one or two big claims. Plenty of published works too, it seems. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Keep in mind that the off our backs articles are the only publication credits mention that don't represent a self-published work by Seelhoff.
  • Weak delete, okay, my bad. Still too many small claims, could maybe use one bigger claim. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't Wikipedia have a policy against using it for self-publicity? Wikipedia is not a blog or myspace. 21:22 4 August 2007 (EST) Anonymous|01:21, 5 August 2007 contribs) has made zero unrelated edits.
  • Comment The running for president bit is meaningless, losing candidates aren't notable since hundreds of thousands of people run for office. hbdragon88 01:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Anonymous. JumpingInSlowMotion 01:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is extensively referenced with cites to external sources, including articles in Salon, Home Education Magazine, and the Link. Off Our Backs is a highly respected, award-winning feminist news journal listed on Common Dreams, Alternet, Z Net and in many progressive venues. I have served as a guest editor for two issues of this publication in this past year. My name appears in the masthead. Also referenced in this article are court records from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in a groundbreaking lawsuit. Gentle Spirit Magazine had a circulation of 35,000 and was not "small." Others have wanted this published for a very long time; I'd be fine with their re-submitting the article in their own name if this would be preferable. "I am curious blue" is not an objective person. He (or she) is a long time blogosphere antagonist whom I do not know and have never personally encountered but who is opposed to radical feminist politics. Heartsees2 02:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Note that the above User is both author and subject of the article. Also note that is not a single citation in the entire article, in spite of this users claims to the contrary. Iamcuriousblue 02:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with rewrite, assuming there is enough reliable sourcing available to make an article. I can't approve of the current article's autobiographical nature, but I also can't approve of the hate campaign that's underway against her. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: First, I think you need to assume good faith here. Yes her page is the target of hateful vandalism, however, neither myself nor, to the best of my knowledge, any of the people voting here for deletion having anything to do with this wave of anonymous IP vandalism, nor do we constitute a "hate campaign". (Yes, in real life I'm opposed to Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff's views – that has nothing to do with why I doubt she merits an article. A lot of people I don't like have Wikipedia articles – big deal.) I'll also note that that a "hate campaign" directed against Seelhoff, does not give her claims of notability any more merit. Iamcuriousblue 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, the hate campaign I'm referring to is the vandalism from a seemingly disparate group of anons like this one,[1] coming from Comcast IPs in various parts of the US, as well as other IPs in the UK, etc. I'm in no way pointing the finger at anyone aside from those IPs, just mentioning that someone, somewhere, is directing an attack on this article. It's too obscure of an article to have gotten so much attention by chance alone. Poindexter Propellerhead 13:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the clarification on that. Seelhoff has stated on her blog that she had her blog hacked and then received a series of extremely hostile comments much like the above edits. I'm sure the anonymous IP vandalism to this article is coming from the same place. But again, none of that has anything to do with this AfD and I don't think a "sympathy vote" for her in the face of such attacks is suffient argument for keeping the article. Iamcuriousblue 15:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't expecting your agreement, although I hope that all concerned have noticed that roughly half of the delete votes, including over 2/3 of the "strong deletes," are 17 editors who have, between them, a grand total of 97 unrelated edits. (It would have been 18 editors and 97 edits, but one blanked the page while voting,[2] and was reverted.) Poindexter Propellerhead 07:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are right that in the last 12 hours or so, there have been a lot of "delete" votes coming from anonymous IP sources, and that is suspicious. However, even among those with named accounts, it seems like the ratio of delete to keep votes is running 20:4. Iamcuriousblue 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Welllll, yeah, it is worse now, but it's not a new phenomenon; the very first "delete" vote came from an address with zero unrelated edits. And if one cannot be considered an SPA suspect if one has: at least 30 edits ever, OR no more than 10% of total edits related to this Rfa, then 15% of the pro-delete named accounts might still be labelled as SPA suspects (along with 100% of the anons). Using that very undemanding standard to sort out probable SPAs, there are (as of this moment) only 15 pro-deletion opinions that aren't under a cloud. That's still 15 for vs. 5 against, so I'm making no argument one way or the other about consensus. But I do think that the subject of the article should consider pursuing administrative remedies against any identifiable parties who may have dragged off-wiki disputes into our midst. Poindexter Propellerhead 23:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The only one in favor of keeping the article seems to be the author, to noones surprise. But to recap, Wikipedia is not - and will never be a place for people of no importance to write things that have no real value whatsoever. --212.242.104.108 02:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)contribs) has made nine unrelated edits.[reply]
  • Userfy as a compromise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this persons acomplishments do not merit a wiki article. Vrtrahex 03:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)contribs) has made seven unrelated edits.[reply]
  • Delete. No independent sources to verify notability, and I have my doubts that any could be found. The article seems to have been written by the subject as advertising for her so-called presidential bid. Rebecca 04:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit. Lots of people running independently for office in the next two years will be notable enough for WP articles, and, human nature being as it is, they 0r their supports will usually edit their WP articles to show off their candidacy. This will take vigilance from the NPOV people here, but I'm sure we can do it. When they add spam, it goes out. Not the article, the spam. DGG (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some of that spam, and also material which seemed to represent unsourced BLP with respect to others. I consider "Off our backs" a major feminist publication, and it lends credit to her notability. I assume additional sources can be found, because they are needed DGG (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
off our backs is indeed a major radical feminist publication, however, that does not mean every writer or editor for that publication is notable – not by a long shot, and I don't think Seelhoff is even that regular of a contributor to oob. Iamcuriousblue 06:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very very limited claims to notability, no mentions in reliable sources that are more than trivial. Searched Google News Archive using both Lindsey & Seelhoff as last names. --Dhartung | Talk 12:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rebecca and Dhartung. Reliable independent nontrivial sources are NOT optional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although we shouldn't but it down solely to Google, it is unfortunately lacking in reliable notable sources. Onnaghar tl | co | @ 13:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Obviously I've been leaning that way all along, and so far, I just haven't seen a "keep" argument that I've found convincing. I don't think her notability at all comes up to the standards outlined in WP:BIO. Nor as a blogger does her blog or website remotely meet the criteria outlined in WP:WEB. No aspect of her biography or work comes up to the criteria established in WP:N – she is simply fantastically lacking in "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is ultimately Wikipedia's bottom-line criterion for notability.
    I've never found her "presidential candidacy" a convincing reason at all – the total membership of the "Free Soil Party" consists of, to the best of my knowledge, exactly two bloggers (one of whom is Seelhoff), and has so far gotten zero coverage outside the blogosphere (and precious little within it). Her writing for off our backs shows some "real-world" recognition, but her total contribution has been as guest editor and writer for three recent issues. Contrast that with Carol Ann Douglas who has been an editor with that journal from its beginnings, has written hundreds of articles for it, and has no Wikipedia article (nor in my opinion is a notable enough figure to merit such). One could argue that the one-time circulation of Gentle Spirit might merit an article about that magazine, but that doesn't justify a separate biographical article about Seelhoff either. Nor do I see any evidence that Seelhoff v. Welch is a case of any note – a Google search reveals only three non-Wikipedia mentions of the case, and one of those is on the website of one of the attorneys who fought the case. Iamcuriousblue 16:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (OK, actually 15 Google hits (other than this article) if the search is expanded to "Seelhoff vs. Welch" – still, that isn't much.)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity autobiography of non-notable person.GideonF 19:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I would tend to agree with DGG's approach but I can't see any sources for the subject at the moment. The content is just not encyclopedic enough, no verification or obvious notability - yes she's written articles for an important magazine, but is that enough for an encyclopedia entry - according to current policy it's not. In the future there may be coverage of the subject so the page should be userfied and when sources exist it should be brought to deletion review--Cailil talk 20:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity artice by the subject of the article. 24.17.153.26 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)— 24.17.153.26 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. per above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by James Luftan (talk • contribs) 23:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seconding the previous comments also. 59.100.88.204 00:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC) contribs) has made no edits prior to this Afd.[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously written by the subject of the article. Does slight amounts of internet notoriety entitle individuals to writing their own articles for publicity? I certainly don't think that's a good direction for Wikipedia. Otherwise, I'll be writing my own article soon.GravyFish 01:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and re-write. Seelhoff is a household name among a population segment--U.S. homeschoolers--because of a lawsuit involving Mary Pride that rocked that population segment. C.m.jones 03:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to be honest, I dont see what this person's claim to notability is. If she's an activist, I dont see any major actions undertaken as an activist Corpx 03:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons Iamcuriousblue discusses. 68.165.173.109 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC) contribs) has made no edits prior to this Afd.[reply]
  • Delete per most of the above comments. Even if she is notable (and neither she nor her advocates have come up with a truly convincing case for her notability so far) this is ridiculously masturbatory and one-sided. 24.91.139.74 05:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC) contribs) has made six edits prior to this Afd. (edit: Admittedly, I may have been a bit harsh -- I probably shouldn't drink and wiki -- and I apologize. My vote still stands.)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This article is absolutely one-sided and just an ego-massage for this Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff. Last i checked wikipedia was not a website for ego massages for those who believe they are (and may be) important. It is like me going and making an article about myself, and all of my good deeds! (ok, my good deeds count in the 10s, oh well) --Deltantor 05:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC) contribs) has made 9 edits prior to this Afd.[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Practically sourceless, pathetic self-promotion page. She is not important or notable (probably killing her to read that a so many times in the same page). DuO 06:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Not notable, POV is far from neutral, article was written/posted mainly by the woman the article is about. The article also lacks citations/sources for the information and claims posted, and that enough is reason for deletion. As for notability of a "candidate for the presidency," any American-born citizen over 35 could make this claim, and could even produce his/her own political party.72.130.19.180 08:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC) — User:72.130.19.180 (talk • contribs) has made 8 edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Strong Delete. The article is very POV and sounds like a press release. Best example is the first paragraph where the article fails to mention who exactly Ms. Seelhoff is besides a daughter of some random people and a farmer. - 75.16.74.178 10:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)— 75.16.74.178 (talk • contribs) has made no edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Not only is this article almost laughably one-sided and self-promoting, this woman does not seem to be notable in any way that holds actual significance. Most leaders of large college LGBT groups are probably more recognized than this woman, so until they all have Wikipedia articles, she shouldn't have one either. This article seems to be existing for the dual purposes of stroking this woman's ego and to give her some sort of credibility by piggybacking off Wikipedia. Also, being the target of a "hacking attack" (and that's using the term lightly) is not notable in and of itself, or most MySpace users would have their own Wikipedia articles too. Rembar 12:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)— Rembar (talk • contribs) has made 26 edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete per all of the previous commentary in favor of deletion. No credible assertions of notability. Valrith 14:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Rembar explains why. --IceWeasel 15:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to fail verifiability standards. I was unable to locate even a credible source discussing the lawsuit. --Moonriddengirl 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The magazine and lawsuit don't lend this person enough notability to merit an article. She can gain mention on an article about her publication, but she has done very little herself. Ninja337 16:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)— Ninja337 (talk • contribs) has made 6 edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Strong Delete Article is biast and auto-biographical. --88.105.207.85 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC) — 88.105.207.85 (talk • contribs) has made no edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Strong Keep based on DGG. Is a presidential candidate, notability is only going to increase from this point forward. Not to say there isn't already enough for her to have an article. Mathmo Talk 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that was not exactly what I said--I have no idea if her notability will increase--only that she was notable on other grounds, & the fact that she was a splinter party presidential candidate is no reason to single the subject out as non-notable. DGG (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it was not exactly what you had said, don't worry I was not meaning to mis-represent you! Just I added on a few of my own reasons when I considered it, which gave to me a stronger reason for keeping it. If I'd based it purely on what you had said I wouldn't have been going for a strong keep (not that that matters much anyway...). Mathmo Talk 02:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this person's entire "presidential candidacy" consists so far of a couple of blog posts, with zero independent coverage. If by some chance the candidacy is picked up by the media, one can always go to deletion review and resurrect the article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and "possible future notability" is no substitute for present-day notability. Iamcuriousblue 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on this article having been written by the person with heavy bias. Not particularly notable, either - I can go out and declare myself a presidential candidate on some no-name party's ticket and still not be notable, amirite? 71.61.81.160 23:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)— 71.61.81.160 (talk • contribs) has made 13 edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete This article is of no use or interest outside of her online group of friends, and a very small niche magazine (the gentile sprit website isn't even online.) Furthermore it is consisting of almost purely autobiographical content, and a bias POV. Wikipedia is not a myspace or an internet phone-book. 71.215.125.95 01:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC) note--anon. ed, only edit. contribs) has made zero edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a blog or a myspace page. lack of notability. also i suggest locking the deleted page for a while to prevent vandalism or slander. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lehk (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 August 2007.
  • Strong Delete If we're going to mention this woman on Wikipedia, it should be as a reference in other articles, such as on the staff list of that magazine she writes for, and as an "independant presidential candidate in 2008 election". This isn't a person who deserves their own article. Hell, I could go write an article about um.... Neale Davidson, because of his notoriety in the Transformers MUSHing community. But I won't, because no one outside of that community (who, in turn, doesn't already know all that drama) cares. Now, if Heart manages to pull through and abruptly win the Presidency next year, then give that woman an article, holy crap! But for now... forget it, she's not worth the database space. Howa0082 04:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notice how the "writings" links all go to her blog website, which contains links to all of those articles on the same page. This is self-promotion, and falsely inflated self-promotion at that.67.185.98.177
  • comment a surprising number of the delete views seem to have been influenced by the dislike for the subject and her political views. This is not meant to apply to any particular comment, unless the author of the comment thinks it does. DGG (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment is disreputable and improper. First, commenting on what amounts to an autobiographical puff piece does not equate to personal criticism of the author – it was this person’s choice to present an account of her life on WP, and the fact that her very flimsy claims to notability have subsequently been questioned is merely a good example of the editing process working as it should. Second, your comment is invidiously phrased, in that it makes a significant allegation which is clearly intended to influence the decision on this article, and yet is lacking in any evidence for that allegation. Third, your comment is without foundation – even a cursory reading of the (surprisingly numerous) opinions in this discussion shows that the vast majority of the comments relate directly to the various ways in which this article offends against WP rules and guidance. Finally, I do not understand where you get the ‘political views’ aspect of your comment from – looking at the article again, the author/subject would seem to be a feminist, but I see nothing that is particularly politically controversial (other than, perhaps, the rather frivolous presidential candidacy).--Greatest hits 10:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment is out of line and unfair. Pretty much all extended opinions on this page are directed solely at the article itself, not the subject or her views, and regardless of the editors' personal beliefs the criticisms being voiced are completely valid. Don't make this more personal than it is. Rembar 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Nothing more than an ego-massage for the author/subject. Not what Wikipedia is about—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.30.122.5 (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2007 note--anon. ed, only edit.
  • Delete I find the article to be heavily self promoting. Myomoto 09:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or a rewrite by a non-biased author. The article in its current state seems to be self-promoting and there is little to suggest that she has any notability w/r/t the feminist movement. Her candidacy for president doesn't make her significant, especially considering it hasn't been covered by any independent source yet. As the 2008 US election nears, her candidacy might be more significant, but that doesn't warrant an article about her now. Assuming that Seelhoff v. Welch is as notable for homeschooling as the article suggests, it would be better to have an article on the case instead of her. mikm 16:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cheryl_Lindsey_Seelhoff&oldid=149789375"