Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• Delete, per Anonymous. JumpingInSlowMotion 01:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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 20+ editors who have, between them, little over a hundred unrelated edits. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
          • 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)
            • 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)
              • Agreed. BTW, I found this blog post pretty much explaining what group was behind the attacks. It fits in with some of the vandalism to the page itself which blanked most of the page and replaced it with "ebaumsworld.com". Iamcuriousblue 02:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
                • Yeah. It extends well beyond ebaumsworld, I think, you can find the post which triggered the whole thing at 1500 web locations, despite the fact that it's only about a week old.[2] Poindexter Propellerhead 04:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Having visited the sites in question regarding the 'hacking' it appears instead to be a rather more mundane troll attack, where some group has taken (rather childish) exception to the subjects' position, which although undoubtedly irritating to the users of the site is not in any way a crime. A few related sites appear to have been closed due to exceeding their bandwidth limits, possibly due to repeated visits by the large number of trolls there seems to have been. Whether or not this was intentional I am uncertain, but it still appears that no actual hacking occurred. --84.69.240.42 17:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
          • The site was also allegedly rooted, the user accounts deleted, the users' personal info stolen, and those users whose site passwords matched their email passwords had their email accounts (and related accounts which used the same passwords, such as paypal accounts) accessed and tampered with. Some are undoubtedly just trolls, but others are quite a bit nastier. Poindexter Propellerhead 22:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
            • I have since spent more time observing what has been going on over there, and as far as I can tell all the personal details thus far known were obtained simply through googlehacking (i.e. carefully tailored search requests), as most of it I myself can find in posts to their blogs either directly or on cached pages. The claims of hacking (if anyone has solid evidence either way, please let me know here) appear to be due to the blog users lack of familiarity with trolls; it is common for people to believe they must have been hacked when often all the obtained data was actually published to the public domain by themselves over time. --84.69.240.42 01:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• 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.
• Userfy as a compromise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I personally wouldn't oppose that. But to what end? Iamcuriousblue 03:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this persons acomplishments do not merit a wiki article. Vrtrahex 03:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)contribs) has made seven unrelated edits.
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Delete per Rebecca and Dhartung. Reliable independent nontrivial sources are NOT optional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete Strong 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.)
• Delete Vanity autobiography of non-notable person.GideonF 19:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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.
• Delete. per above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by James Luftan (talk • contribs) 23:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I apologize for my clumsiness and and neglecting to sign my name; I'd like to thank whoever fixed it. James Luftan ^contribs 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• 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.
• 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)
• 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)
  • What was the lawsuit? Is likely this could greatly increase her notability if so. Mathmo ^Talk 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • That was Seelhoff v. Welch – Mary Pride wasn't one of the parties, but was involved in some capacity. As I said in my delete comments, I'm still not sure if Seelhoff v. Welch is an important case, other than indirectly involving somebody notable. Iamcuriousblue 02:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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.
• 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.)
• 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.
• 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)
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Delete per all of the previous commentary in favor of deletion. No credible assertions of notability. Valrith 14:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Rembar explains why. --IceWeasel 15:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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.
• 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.
• 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)

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)

• 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)

• • 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)
• 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.
• 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.

• 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.

• Delete We can all see it's self promotion, with no credible sources, violates the Autobiography policy, and quite frankly is not noteworthy; add her to a list, Longcat deserves his own page more then her in terms of publicity. 68.1.79.246 04:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)— 68.1.79.246 (talk • contribs) has made 3 edits outside this topic.

• 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)

• 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.67.185.98.17767.185.98.177 (talk • contribs) has made 3 edits outside this topic.

• Strong Delete This autobiographical page is created by its subject, references a blog created and run by its subject, and is manifestly self-promotional. The subject may well have a high opinion of herself (as may be seen by her own comments on this issue): that merely confirms the solipsistic nature of this entry. Also note this entry contravenes the COI policy: the name of the creating editor is a conflict of interest. Articles such as this risk turning WP into nothing more than a vanity press. As such, it should be deleted. --Greatest hits 08:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)— Greatest hits (talk • contribs) has made six other edits outside this topic. James Luftan ^contribs 15:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In the interests of absolute fairness, I have checked various references and assertions in the entry in question. First, in relation to the 'presidential candidacy' that is asserted, the name Seelhoff does not appear on the most authoritative site I could find: [3]. Second, many of the reference links are dead: the Salon link produces a ‘404 not found’ message; the ‘Gentle Spirit’ site does not seem to exist; most of the ‘Home Education magazine’ links don’t work and lead one into an annoying maze of content-free secure pages; the reference to ‘The Margins’ website seems to link to the gentle spirit website that doesn’t exist. The ‘free soil’ website is down. Finally, the litigation cited is stated to have taken place in the 'U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington'; this case would be more notable if it took place in a precedent setting court, and, of course, less notable if it did not. I do not know whether this State District Court is precedent setting or not, but it may be worth finding out. For the sake of completeness I searched for the case on the principal online resource for case-law: ([4]), but I could find no references to the case cited in the article.--Greatest hits 17:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Note that the reason the links weren't working was because they were coded wrong, causing additional characters to appear at the end of the URL. I've just fixed this. Also, while User:Greatest Hits is a new account, I don't think James Luftan's characterization of it as a single-purpose account is accurate. Iamcuriousblue 03:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

my comment is based on the frequency to which the negative views include opinions about her, not the article. Looking above, I get 50%. DGG (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• 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)— Myomoto (talk • contribs) has made 13 edits outside this topic.
• 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)
• Delete The article appears to be largely if not entirely written by its subject, supported by various remarks made by the subject on the linked websites, violating guidelines regarding publicising a person or platform on Wikipedia. The only points of note are (1) the legal case, which if deemed sufficiently important (ideally by an editor working in law in the US), should instead be an article in itself and not in a biographical article; and (2) the candidacy of the subject, which should only warrant an article if the subject achieves a realistic chance of election based on public vote results, and the subject has not contended in any such process at the present time. --84.69.240.42 17:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC) — 84.69.240.42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James Luftan ^contribs 17:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's just ridiculous, shameless self-promotion. JorgeMacD 20:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The anonymous votes are probably coming in because she's gotten herself in trouble with some ebaumsworld members, but it doesn't make them wrong.--Insomniac By Choice 20:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I freely admit that I only discovered this article because embaumsworld is targeting the subject, but although they're here for the wrong reasons, they're still pretty much right about this article's merits. The sources (those that actually work, anyway) fail entirely to meet notability requirements. The legal case might count for something, but that's a separate article and wouldn't merit a biography of this subject in any case. Jefepato 21:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)— Jefepato (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James Luftan ^contribs 22:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Press coverage would be a big help, but there is none. Articles are listed from Off Our Backs, but the ones I noticed were all by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff herself. If the article didn't have such a promotional tone about the subject, it might encourage people to work harder to fix it and keep it. I sense that it could be fixed, but I don't see how to do it without help from the people who have voted Keep in the debate, who I think mostly don't see the problems. I am nervous about disagreeing with DGG, but if he wants to fix it, I think there is a lot of work to do. EdJohnston 21:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious cruft. --BlarghHgralb 01:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Encyclopedia Dramatica has a "Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff" page (not allowed to link to it, evidently) that's acting as a site to co-ordinate the DoS attack and directs people to this article for vandalism, as well as encouraging people to vote for deletion. (I'm not sure if its a new thing for ED to directly encourage intervention/trolling on Wikipedia or whether they've done this before.) I'll also note that there's a post on Seelhoff's blog directly referring to this Wikipedia article and noting that "Wikipedia is considering deleting it for various stupid reasons", hence any new suspicious "keep" votes from anonymous users or new or moribund accounts need to be viewed with the same scrutiny as similar "delete" votes. Iamcuriousblue 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment about IP voters. I see some complaints above about IP voters and external canvassing. The AfD closer will surely be able to sort that out. Meanwhile, if we look at the article itself, can't anyone come up with reliable sources that are independent of the subject? I see some primary sources (court documents), I see many articles by the subject herself, and I see quotes from activist web sites. Haven't any normal newspapers written about this case? EdJohnston 00:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Self-published works all i see. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. No reputable sources, not a notable character. Roddyboy 01:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• I note that ED is doing a denial of service attack on all things related to the subject of the article. That makes an independent evaluation significantly harder, and might in itself be reason to hold this discussion some other time when they've moved on to another target. For some reason, the salon.com reference link in the article goes to a 404 page, but when I search their site, I get an article with the same url. The results at Home Education Magazine make it clear to me that she and the case are notable within the homeschooling movement. I believe that with effort, there is adequate sourcing for a good biography, and that she is notable to WP:BIO standards for her homeschooling advocacy. The more recent feminist advocacy may also be notable. There is, however, no evidence of any notability in the political candidacy - in the blogosphere, anyone with a couple hours to spare can become a candidate; actually being one takes more effort. All in all, we should keep the article, and improve it over time. GRBerry 01:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • All the entries on the magazine appear to link (at least at first glance) to discussions surrounding the case, not the person; at most this should warrant an article on the ruling made and not a biographical article. Her feminist activity appears to be largely restricted to the blogosphere, and many feminists more notable than herself (as has been noted elsewhere in this discussion) lack articles due to obscurity. (Note - I am not a new editor, but have instead edited anonymously from time to time and never felt the need to create an account). When it comes to dealing with the IP votes, provided they actually provide some form of legitimate justification or refer to such a justification made by a registered editor they should be left as-is; it should only matter if the argument is ultimately sound rather than if they have edited elsewhere or not. --Nenhume 02:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't emphasize enough that the attempted interference from ED is not a sufficient argument to keep the article, or even delay deletion. Even if every anonymous IP and suspicious username is eliminated, there is still a very large plurality in favor of deletion. (I know this isn't a strict vote, but large pluralities generally do matter in AfD votes.) Also, I'm just not finding in any of the "keep" argument any strong argument for the notability of Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, as supported by multiple, non-trivial, non-self-published sources. At best, I've seen some argument for creating a separate article on Gentle Spirit, and if anybody here more knowledgeable about the homeschooling milieu than I wants to do this, I certainly wouldn't oppose it. Iamcuriousblue 03:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This women fails at life, she's suffering from a sever case of unwarrented self-importance and should be deleted immediatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.0.201 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Self-promotion, non-notable. Maybe make an article on Gentle Spirit, but the article on Seelhoff herself should be deleted. Amphy 03:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Page break for readability

• Keep: This is pretty pathetic but only what I have come to expect of the lynchmob spirit that seems to dominate around here too often. Because of my research on the Quiverfull movement (I wrote 95% of our WP article on that subject and am writing a book about the movement, and note the WP article has been cited seriously before), I am going to speak here as very probably the only person in this entire thread who actually has expertise on some key topics with which Seelhoff has crossed paths related to the movement, which is integrally connected to homeschooling.
  
  So we have a person, Seelhoff herself, who broke WP rules and wrote her own article. Okay, so fix the self-promotion and remove the trivial stuff from the article. In point of fact, the section on her lawsuit stemming from Gentle Spirit Magazine rocked the Christian homeschooling world and was covered in news.
  
  Moreover, it has been made a huge deal above that her mag only had 35,000 subscribers, but given that there were only about 450,000 homeschoolers in the U.S. during that period, obviously not all of them Christian (Gentle Spirit was Christian focused), that number is substantial. WP has articles on scads of Category:LGBT magazines that do not have (or did not have, for the defunct) a circulation of 35,000, and articles on their publishers whose comparable notability is less or similar to Seelhoff's For examples see Mado Lamotte, Tonie Walsh, Lucian Dunăreanu. This would most certainly mean they'd need to get the axe too, unless we are following capricious double-standards here (won't surprise me at all, but sure, please do surprise me).
  
  Get over the fact that she wrote her own article. CyberAnth 02:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: Excuse me, but where is the evidence of this person's notability? Her mention in any medium other than those that she's self-published is absolutely minimal. The fact that she did an autobiography is not the sole reason for deletion, though it certainly compounds the problem and adds serves as strong evidence that this article is nothing more than a vanity piece. If Gentle Spirit really was an important publication for the homeschooling movement, then I certainly would not oppose creating an article on it. However, even it that magazine is notable, that does not automatically mean the editor of that journal is sufficiently notable enough to have a biographical article. Iamcuriousblue 02:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. In short: just saying "well, there's this crap too" does not a valid reason make. David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • Then why won't you take two minutes to nominate those articles for deletion? I gave you links. And is that all I said? Of course not. And obviously, it is you that has some cloudy judgment issues here, and not me, which is why I reverted you. CyberAnth 02:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Because I'm getting a couple of articles up to GA, and I still have to get around to nominating some other articles for deletion. And also, because you're being incivil to me, and I would not wish to make you happy thusly. David Fuchs ^(talk) 03:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • (Civility please.) My evaluation of some of the independently written material that I was able to find (Salon.Com and Home Education Magazine's online site) is in this diff on the article's talk page. GRBerry 02:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Yes, see my bolstering comments in this diff. CyberAnth 03:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on what you said, it doesn't seem that Ms. Seelhoff is notable outside the case. Have an article on the court case which explains her role in it. mikm 04:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Userfy and let someone unconnected to the subject write an article using reliable, secondary sources (which don't include documents filed in a court case, <Rumsfeld>for pete's sake</Rumsfeld>) once the drama has died down. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This is absurd. This woman has no claim to any sort of notoriety -- the fact that she created her own article ought to be telling enough. Ddevlin 03:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[[User:Ddevlin|ddevlin]