Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elena Taube Bailey


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Elena Taube Bailey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Of all the sources in this article, only three mention the subject at all. Of those, one is an unreliable blog written by the person who officiated the subject's wedding and another is simply an index which points to the third source. The third source is an inside-the-beltway puff piece which in no way indicates the subject's notability. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO in that the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and lacks independent notability since there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else. Brycehughes (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as I still concur my PROD, simply none of this is convincing to go against policy when there are such blatant concerns. SwisterTwister   talk  21:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - This reads like a fluff piece intended to make a non-notable person notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete It looks like a lot of work went into this article, but I'm sorry to say that the subject lacks any notability. There's not one reliable source that discusses her in any depth. Almost all of the references are just links to to the homepages of various organizations related to her. There's no way we can keep this one. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 07:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I didn't find anything in RS on Google or databases. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above Delete arguments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is based on passing mentions, rather than Substantial, Reliable Sources - the information just isn't out there. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC) strike my !vote - see below
 * Speedy Delete - WP:SNOW - Article created by a now-blocked Sockpuppet Account. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - Creator of this article has been blocked from editing for being a Sockpuppet. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - This quite clearly fails WP:GNG. --  Dane talk  00:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is based on Legitimate, Reliable Sources, such as the East Bay Timesand magazines. The information is clearly there. Not sure why the few here are having trouble with their searches. These are just two source examples of many others. The article also meets notability, especially on interfaith religious issues/movement.Pettya (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC) — Pettya (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  (Striking !vote by blocked sock.)
 * The East Bay Times? Sheesh. Since when is "interfaith religious issues/movement" a criteria for notability?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The East Bay Times report is just one source noting the individual. The larger point is the individual is the reason that the Washington National Cathedral now permits interfaith marriages inside the cathedral and held it's first Jewish-Christian wedding in U.S. history! That's the notable part. This hasn't happened until this individual got involved.Pettya (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC) — Pettya (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - The first source only mentions her once - that's a Passing Mention. That's the problem with the sources - if you remove the ones that only mention her name once or twice, the list shrinks very quickly. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Response to Comment - The amount of times a name is listed in an article does NOT connote the notability of the subject and it's proclivity for deletion. It's the effort and works of the subject that matter, which the sources report. In light of the subject's notability in advancing interfaith dialogue- making Jewish-Christian marriages possible at the Washington National Cathedral for example, is notable in the Jewish Christian movement.Dove.Leesa (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You couldn't be more wrong. The standard for notability, applied to Biographies of Living Persons, specifically requires Substantial Coverage in Reliable Independent Sources. You may want to have a read of WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood, it notes "Substantial Coverage in Reliable Independent 'Sources'"...meaning plural sources...substantial mentions of the person in various sources. It does not say that one article needs to mention the individual more than five or three times. If Wiki is to execute your judgment on this then the rule would say "the single source must mention the person more than once." Since Wiki didn't write it that way...that means it's up for debate and I debate that it's notable and covered substantially.Dove.Leesa (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well your misinterpretation of the policy is quite unfortunate. Let's just see what other editors think. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed. Jews for Jesus is a reputable site? Or an article written by a minister?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This subject possesses independent notability in the realm of interfaith dialogue/movement (specifically, creating acceptance in the Washington National Cathedral of Jewish-Christian marriages- and holding the first Jewish-Christian wedding ceremony at the cathedral in U.S. history) and the federal government. The sources (just to list a few: magazines, the East Bay Times, Jews for Jesus, etc.) are clearly legitimate and show the subject's notable work.Dove.Leesa (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC) (Striking !vote by blocked sock.)
 * Keep. Subject is credible. The article is well written, well sourced- sources from reputable magazines and newspapers such as, the East Bay Times. Subject is notable for efforts in the interfaith dialogue and Jewish Christian movement, for example, notable success in directly getting the National Cathedral in D.C. to permit Jewish Christian weddings (this is the first time in history that this has happened), representing the cathedral in interfaith dialogue at the Washington Hebrew Congregation; Subject is notable for role in presidential campaigning and federal government. Unlike Brycehughes|Brycehughes notes, the Washingtonian is a reputable magazine, just like Vogue or Vanity Fair, so his bias on the Washingtonian magazine needs to be deleted or disregarded. The subject clearly has independent notability in the interfaith dialogue movement and federal government contributions.65.222.202.205 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC) (Striking !vote by blocked user.)


 * 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.