Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DL Teamor


 * 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   Delete per WP:SNOW despite the massive amounts of sockpuppetry and. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

DL Teamor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A lot of external links but which one is actually an in-depth, independent discussion of the woman? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Where do the guidelines indicate that there has to be an article with lengthy discussion? RHaworth Wikipedia guidelines do not say that. Coraopolis412 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

2)The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications. 4)The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coraopolis412 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me what you would like to see included on the page, RHaworth. I don't understand why this is troubling to you. There are many other resources that can be included, but I'd like to know what you deem necessary. Coraopolis412 (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO says "published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Which of your refs fit this criterion? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

RHaworth Fox2 News, Xlibris Publishing, Hour Detroit Magazine, Goodreads, CW50 Street Vibes, WDWO TV, Black Authors & Published Writers Directory 2013...these are all independent of each other and very reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coraopolis412 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Can you explain further? Coraopolis412 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, RHaworth in reading some of the other Christian Fiction authors pages, I see some with less notoriety and achievements... Coraopolis412 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * MyFoxDetroit does not even mention the woman's name. XLibris patently not independent. Hour-Detroit has a picture - no text at all. Need I go on? And please read WP:OSE. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

RHaworthThe entire report on Fox 2 is DL Teamor - - she is the one who is speaking during the whole interview and the name is on the screen. I understand about Xlibris, the whole gala was DL Teamor's for Calvary House, Yes, please go on... - - as far as OSE, it says, In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight... Would this not include the work for Veterans who otherwise have no voice? The Hour Detroit, Fox and CW50 reports directly address these issues.Coraopolis412 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC) .Coraopolis412 (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The subject might well be a very nice person but that doesn't convey notability. Coraopolis412, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. "Other articles which don't meet standards are here so this one should remain" is no argument; it's just an argument to remove the other articles. A Harlem Love Song might come under this AfD as well. Tonywalton Talk 00:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete self-published author. References are either non-independed or are products of press releases. The only book which is even in WorldCat is Because our story will never end, which is in one library exactly. I prodded the articles on the two books. Personally, i think all three articles could also be deleted as G11, promotional, for that is their obvious intent.  DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Do Not Delete - - I have heard of this author through both her published works and as a talk show host on TCT. I also watch her on Ask the Pastor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvs530 (talk • contribs) Mvs530 (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Mvs530 is likely a sockpuppet of Coraopolis412. 69.181.253.230 (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, having some press is no reason for a Wikipedia article. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Do Not Delete has shows on multiple network stations in the United States. Because they are not known worldwide is no cause for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudiacandi (talk • contribs) 01:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — Claudiacandi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do Not Delete This lady is known throughout Michigan for her work with Veterans as well as her books and TV shows.BranBrooks (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — BranBrooks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do Not Delete She is on the news and radio frequently speaking about vet issues and is seen often performing, speaking or giving keynote addresses at graduations and other engagements. In the guidelines, this shows that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers".AdrianPVT (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — AdrianPVT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do Not Delete I am the target of this deletion campaign. I was made aware of this article earlier today and I am honored that my peers have chosen to recognize me in this way. I am definitely, "a nice lady" as some who don't know me above have indicated, but by no means was this the reason that they have written this article. There has been "Significant coverage" about me and I have been "the main topic of the source material" in more publications, journals and compilations than I could ever remember. They are certainly from "Reliable" sources as they are from "published works in all forms and media, and in any language." I see that news stories have been included on the page from FOX, TCT and CW50. I'm sure these would be called reliable in any media circle. All included "Sources" are secondary sources, and Multiple sources have been provided. I am certain that more could be added, however there would be more links than verbiage, and I'm sure that isn't the point of these articles. The guidelines say that the Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English I will make these available to the article writer as soon as possible. The media sources that have been provided are "Independent of the subject" and I am in no way affiliated with those who interviewed me, wrote about me, etc. These are simply my peers who have an immense respect for my contributions. I can be contacted via my website with any questions or concerns.DLeniseTeamor (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — DLeniseTeamor (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do Not Delete For those who have voted to delete, please tell me how many more sources you want included and I will include as many as you want.Coraopolis412 (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Certainly by the sources being put forth as the best ones, coverage is not being shown. The CW50 has about a two sentence mention of her by one of her colleagues; the piece is on the organization, not on her. The Fox piece shows her and has her talking, but that doesn't make her the subject - again, about two sentences on her... and that's in an interview about an auction by the person who is emceeing the auction, making it hard to see as independent. The piece that has a photo of her with her name in the caption, again, not significant coverage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - This does not seem to be a notable subject, despite the sources. An in-depth look at the sources shows that.  Furthermore, the article is poorly written and lacks a true neutral point of view.  Also, does anyone think we may have a sockpuppetry issue going on with the posts above that all say "do not delete"?  Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 02:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I did a cleaning of the article to see if there was anything that could show notability. After all, an article might look bad but still contain RS or things that could point towards notability. I've cleaned out the worst of it, but the end result was pretty much what the other editors said: there is no notability here. Of the sources on the article, none were usable. Since we have so many new editors here, I'll give a rundown of why this is so:


 * 1) This is a news story about an event. Teamor is not the focus of the article and even if the news story showed nothing but her face, that still isn't really something that would show notability for her. It's very, very rare that an event will show notability for a person when that person isn't the focus for the event. Even if she was, most events aren't really considered to be notable enough to really give a lot (or any) notability. Less than 1% of any event or award out there is considered to extend notability to its recipient and even then, less than .01% of those events or awards are enough to give complete notability.
 * 2) This just shows that she attended. Now assuming that this was an overwhelmingly notable event by Wikipedia standards, notability is not inherited by her having attended a notable event. This isn't a notable event though, nor is the event in the previous source. Both might have good intentions, but notability standards for events are very strict.
 * 3) This is her personal website and cannot show notability because it's a primary source. No primary source will ever be usable as far as showing notability goes. The reason for this is because we have no way of knowing the exact nature of whatever is being claimed. I'm not saying that the author would willfully lie about her accomplishments (although we've had people do that, so people have to be suspicious) but it is common for people to play up things that might not be considered that big per Wikipedia's standards. For example, someone could say "bestselling" but it ends up that it only sold well on Amazon while offered as a freebie on the Kindle. Or you could say "award winning" and it ends up being an award that isn't considered notable per Wikipedia.
 * 4) This is just a directory of writers. Directories aren't considered to be usable as reliable sources, although it could be usable as a trivial one that just backs up that she's written. The problem here is that nobody is questioning whether or not she's written. We're asking whether or not she's notable. While I find her accomplishments admirable, this admiration doesn't translate to notability per Wikipedia. This isn't a sling against her, it's just a pretty common fact that there will be thousands of people who do great things but still won't pass notability guidelines.
 * 5) Besides the fact that this is a primary source written by the author, this is a merchant site and merchant sites are never usable as a sources here on Wikipedia.
 * 6) This is also seen as a primary source and given that you can order the books through the publisher, this is also seen as a merchant source.
 * 7) Goodreads isn't usable as a reliable source. Not even the reviews are usable. Reviews must be written by notable persons or by people considered to be an absolute authority and they must be in places considered to be reliable. Given how easy it is to sign up for an account and post a review claiming to be someone, there's no way we can use a review posted anywhere on this or any review site of this nature.
 * 8) This is a routine listing for her church. Event or business listings are not usable as reliable sources. This can't even really be considered to be a feature since it was written by Teamor herself.
 * 9) This is just a routine listing and even if it weren't, this isn't really the type of source that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. Most websites aren't considered to be reliable, really. It's not that anyone thinks that the sites are lying, just that there are pretty strict standards for what is or isn't usable.
 * 10) This is another routine database listing. The thing about these types of listings is that it's never really that hard to get included. Even if it is an exclusive list, just being listed isn't enough unless it's a list that is so hard to get onto that it would give notability. By this I mean that Teamor would be listed on a list such as the ALA's "Best of 2012" lists that they put out each year.
 * 11) This looks to be a recording by an internet radio station. Most internet shows aren't usable as reliable sources and that this was uploaded by Teamor doesn't really help either. YouTube is really only usable as a RS if it's uploaded by the official source, such as if CNN were to do a piece on her and upload it to their YT channel. It's sort of moot in this case since the show isn't seen as a notable or reliable enough source to give notability.
 * 12) While this is a local TV station, the video was still uploaded by Teamor herself. Even if we were to count this as a reliable source regardless of that and for other concerns voiced by other editors, one source is not enough to show notability. The only time one or two sources would be enough is if the sources verify something so overwhelmingly notable that it would give instant notability. By this I mean that it would show that she won a Pulitzer or the Nobel Prize. The unsaid thing about things that people have done or achieved is that if the event or act is something that would give notability based upon that one fact or event, it would be something that would be covered in multiple independent and reliable sources.


 * Basically put, she doesn't pass notability guidelines. Helping out people who are less fortunate is unfortunately not something that gives notability. It'd be nice if we could say that it was, but it's not. It might seem unfair that someone who does nice things for other people and sacrifices their time gets no coverage while someone who is known for being rathouse crazy gets so much coverage that they merit their own article. The thing is, it's not up to Wikipedia to make up the difference for what is or isn't covered in the media and we cannot give every person an article, regardless of how deserving they might seem. If they don't have coverage, they can't get an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for reasons very well stated by Tokyogirl79. I am also concerned about sockpuppetry, per comment by Red Phoenix. HillbillyGoat (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2013 (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.