Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Snow (therapist)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Barbara Snow (therapist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks WP:GNG, the refs given are of one source and this one cannot be called a reliable one CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete She is a very finge chracter. The article does not give broad enough contents. It also engages in coat racking and chracter assasination against a person that there is zero evidence they ever in any way intervened in the matter. There is no evidence that the 1985 accusations outcome was in any way influenced by anyone acting on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These false abbuse accusations were a nationwide phenomenon, they were not limited to Utah, this needs much better context than the article on this very minor person could ever provide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This article is clearly controversial and polarizing, neither of which are valid reasons to delete or censor.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Argument For Deletion !! Response
 * "Lacks WP:GNG" || Per WP:GNG, A topic is notable if the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Barbara Snow's activities have received significant coverage for going on four decades now from various news outlets, journals, documentaries, blogs, podcasts, etc.  "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."  Keep in mind that this article is less than 24 hours old, but already there are a number of reliable sources where she is the main topic, or more than a trivial mention.
 * "refs given are of one source and this one cannot be called a reliable one" || I am truly mystified as to what the "one" source is referred to. The sources mentioned here include The Salt Lake Tribune, The Deseret News, Mormon History Association, and CBS affiliated KUTV.  All of these sources are reliable.  They are all secondary sources.  None of them are considered "tabloids".  Per WP:NEWSORG "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact".  Please reconsider and clarify which source is not reliable.
 * "She is a very fringe character" || Not according to the sources. She was and still is extremely influential in the SRA movement in Utah, and the broader movement in general. She is notable enough to even receive mentions in several other articles.
 * "The article does not give broad enough context." || Per WP:ATD: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page". This article is less than 24 hours old.  The solution should not be to delete it, but to add context.
 * "It also engages in coat racking and chracter assasination against a person that there is zero evidence they ever in any way intervened in the matter."|| Are you referring to Barbara Snow? Who is the coatracked/character assasinated person?  This seems more a conversation worthy of the talk page, to ensure information is accurate and presented in a NPOV way.
 * "There is no evidence that the 1985 accusations outcome was in any way influenced by anyone acting on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" || Per WP:ATD: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page". As far as content, that's why words such as "alleged" and "accused of" are used.  If there is a more NPOV way to present it, it should be changed.  This is not germane to the deletion discussion however.
 * "These false abbuse accusations were a nationwide phenomenon, they were not limited to Utah, this needs much better context than the article on this very minor person could ever provide."
 * The article never says the accusations were true. The article never said it wasn't a nationwide phenomenon.  It never said it wasn't limited to Utah.  This article isn't about SRA.  Again, the solution should be to add context, not delete the article. Per WP:ATD: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page"
 * "It also engages in coat racking and chracter assasination against a person that there is zero evidence they ever in any way intervened in the matter."|| Are you referring to Barbara Snow? Who is the coatracked/character assasinated person?  This seems more a conversation worthy of the talk page, to ensure information is accurate and presented in a NPOV way.
 * "There is no evidence that the 1985 accusations outcome was in any way influenced by anyone acting on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" || Per WP:ATD: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page". As far as content, that's why words such as "alleged" and "accused of" are used.  If there is a more NPOV way to present it, it should be changed.  This is not germane to the deletion discussion however.
 * "These false abbuse accusations were a nationwide phenomenon, they were not limited to Utah, this needs much better context than the article on this very minor person could ever provide."
 * The article never says the accusations were true. The article never said it wasn't a nationwide phenomenon.  It never said it wasn't limited to Utah.  This article isn't about SRA.  Again, the solution should be to add context, not delete the article. Per WP:ATD: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page"
 * "These false abbuse accusations were a nationwide phenomenon, they were not limited to Utah, this needs much better context than the article on this very minor person could ever provide."
 * The article never says the accusations were true. The article never said it wasn't a nationwide phenomenon.  It never said it wasn't limited to Utah.  This article isn't about SRA.  Again, the solution should be to add context, not delete the article. Per WP:ATD: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page"
 * The article never says the accusations were true. The article never said it wasn't a nationwide phenomenon.  It never said it wasn't limited to Utah.  This article isn't about SRA.  Again, the solution should be to add context, not delete the article. Per WP:ATD: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page"

I completely agree that there needs to be more context. There should be an entire article on SRA moral panic and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to provide that context. In fact there was one, but it mysteriously disappeared even though the result of the discussion was to keep. Clearly this is embarrassing and polarizing. But neither of these reasons are reasons for censorship.
 * }
 * First of all - no one is going to censor your article and of course it is not nominated because of being polarizing (which I do not see at all). The sources you cited in your table do not exist in the article, perhaps you are confusing with some other article?! Simply the subject does lack notability and you have to show notability directly at the time of publishing...not somewhat later. If you want to improve/work on the article you can ask for moving it back to your sandbox. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The article I'm referring to is Barbara Snow (therapist), and the sources are all listed in the References section. I'm glad it doesn't read as polarizing to you.  I'm legitimately confused and wondering if we really are talking about the same article.  If you look at the very first edit Special:PermanentLink/963142747, all of these sources were present in the article at the time of publishing.  They were not added later. Maybe this is a different article than you were thinking of? Epachamo (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked out the news sources, because I dislike basing our articles on news, but the one non-news source in the article is by Massimo Introvigne, who is certainly not a reliable source despite the hagiography of an article that we have about him. Consensus that he is unreliable was confirmed 6 months ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no Wikipedia policy against basing an article on News Sources. Per WP:RS "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". The Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News are well-established news outlets. The non-news source you mentioned was the Mormon History Association, not CESNUR.  CESNUR reprinted it online which I linked to.  I have removed the link to CESNUR and added an additional source for that particular sentence, which also happens to be a non-news source. Epachamo (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it was published by CESNUR, but that it was written by Massimo Introvigne, whose unreliability was confirmed in the link I provided. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Your link was closed based on "standing consensus" of an earlier discussion about CESNUR, not about Massimo Introvigne himself. See earlier consensus that was referred to: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278, that did not include Introvigne.  There was no consensus reached about Introvigne himself. Regardless, even if the source were removed completely, the additional source added has the same information supporting that particular sentence. Epachamo (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no difference between Massimo Introvigne and CENSUR. And that discussion (as you can tell by simply looking at the title) was about both, and was closed as "generally unreliable". There was nothing about only CENSUR being unreliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There was also nothing about consensus being reached on the page you linked to. From the link you posted, it says: "Generally unreliable, closing due to sockpuppetry and lack of credible cause to REVISIT the standing consensus." (emphasis added) Consensus was NOT reached in the link you posted at all.  It appealed to a prior consensus about CESNUR, not Introvigne.  I'm not sure you can block any one person as a reliable source on Wikipedia.  No individual person in on the WP:RSPSOURCES list anyway.  If Alex Jones were able to write a scientific paper, get it peer reviewed and published in the most prestigious scientific journal, then I would argue that it is ok., as you were the one that closed the discussion, can you comment?  Did you intend to mark Massimo Introvigne as not a reliable source in addition to CESNUR? Epachamo (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment— I haven’t commenced source analysis but from briefly reading the body i can definitely see the coat rack concerns. perharps address that. Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Especially considering this is a living person, it is a completely valid to be concerned about coatracking. On top of that, she is a controversial person within a controversial subculture. From WP:COAT, "a coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects." I assume the "tangential subject" is Satanic Ritual Abuse(SRA)?  If not, please let me know what you feel it is and I will address that as well.  Study into Snow's life shows that SRA is anything but tangential but a integral part of who she is and her mission.  She is unapologetic about it.  If Snow herself read the article, I feel confident she would agree, based on her publications, participation in various prosecutions and testimonies of her patients.  She might disagree with the characterization of SRA being a moral panic, but that is the scientific consensus that should be reflected in Wikipedia. To really get a deep background, I recommend blog about Barbara Snow from a PHD Psychologist,  Discussion of Snow and her techniques, Gizmodo podcast about Teal Swan that discusses Snow and her techniques,further information about Snow (a lot of these references are not wikipedia appropriate, but provide a a quick if sometimes biased view of Snow that should help provide rapid context to make a judgement on whether the emphasis on SRA is coatracking). Epachamo (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have made several changes to the article to address the concerns expressed here. I have added several non-news references including books, a journal article and documentary.  I have a couple more sources that I will add when they show up to my house from Amazon.  I have added material that provides some additional context, including a review of her academic work done with secondary sources.  I have added Snow's own responses to some of the more controversial parts of her life, so this doesn't come across as an "attack" article. Please let me know if there are any other particular aspects that need to be changed and I will change them. Epachamo (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable, with the improvements made since the nomination. Epachamo has done good work.  If kept, there should one or two sentences in the lead describing Snow's downgraded professional qualifications.  A thin line to walk in a BLP but it can be done factually.  --Lockley (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm going to go with keep here, too. Subject seems notable, and while the article does need a bit of cleaning up, it is far from needing to be deleted. Also, the worry about Introvigne, while understandable, seems somewhat inappropriate here (his book, after all, was published by Brill—which is a very reputable academic publisher—and was published as a volume of an edited series; I wouldn't be surprised if the book was peer-reviewed, too).-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  20:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Achieving notability is independent of what kind of person the subject is. The subject appears to meet, at least, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The content of the article is worth discussing on the article's talk page but I cannot see how the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. That's what is being discussed here, not the treatment of the subject in the article. Ifnord (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.