Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miranda Esmonde-White


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Miranda Esmonde-White

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a dancer and writer, WP:COATRACKing a blatantly advertorial-toned promotional spiel for her book — and even the parts which are actually about her as a person are decidedly tilted toward a prosified résumé (see especially "Lectures and Appearances") instead of an encyclopedia article, and are leaning very heavily on invalid primary sources. Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE, without prejudice against recreation of a properly encyclopedic and neutral version in the future. Bearcat (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This was NOT an advertorial when I began the article. It seems to have been reworked in an advertorial format, which I discovered a few days ago.  I was quite disappointed.  I think that it's an article and topic with merit but that the format, as such, is not reason for the article's deletion; IMO, it should be wikified and its writing style returned to its proper format.
 * Miranda Esmonde-White, as a dancer, was significant. Her recovery and re-invention is IMO significant and of interest in light of her celebrity status.  Several paragraphs seem to have been removed, including her having coached a number of athletes prior to the discovery of her cancer. MaynardClark (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Leaning more towards delete as even the earlier version by MaynardClark was not solid and abundantly sourced while the current one is (albeit different). My searches didn't find much here, nothing at Books but results at both Highbeam and Thefreelibrary. I'm not familiar with this subject and her works but I'm not seeing much from my results. SwisterTwister   talk  00:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * :Why don't deletionist complainers try to improve the article instead of demanding perfection from this one individual's work? Lazy!!  It's a draft, and someone (in "the industry") who likes Miranda Esmonde-White) asked that it be released (from draft status) as a ready-to-go article.  Why not return it to me as a draft, since I see only one or two deletionist complainers (one saying it's not fully sourced; but in 2015, repeated appearances on PBS ought to count as notability.  MaynardClark (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * :Look in Amazon.com for the books, DVDs, and tapes. MaynardClark (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm never sure what to do about self-help topics because there don't seem to be any reliable outlets for review and discussion of them. It's not medical but it's not quite entertainment. There are some third-party sources on this article that seem to be reasonable. Unfortunately, there is a lot of unsupported, very over-the-top stuff. I removed some of the more ridiculous unsourced claims (e.g. that she danced with Nureyev). The remaining lists should be pared down - there's no encyclopedic reason to list all of her DVDs. The article is overdone, some refs should be removed as not appropriate (e.g. to her site), and all refs need to be checked because I found some that had nothing to do with the sentence they followed. MaynardClark, I don't think you can blame unknown forces for the content of this article, since diffs show otherwise. Reducing the article to supported facts and reliable sources would actually strengthen it. LaMona (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not familiar with all the ins and outs of how Wikipedia works. All I know that as a senior, this program works and information should be made available for us seniors who are seeking information about programmes to improve our health and wellness. I am not sure what needs to be done to rewrite this so that it meets the Wiki criteria. Please advise - Thanks--Zephyr137 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, just for the record, one thing you need to know about how Wikipedia works is that if you want to comment in an AFD discussion, you do it at the bottom of the page, not at the top above even the page header. And another thing you need to know is that Wikipedia is not a public relations database on which any topic, health and wellness program promoter or otherwise, gets to have a promotionally-toned article just because she exists — the key to getting this kept is to make sure it reads like, and is sourced like, an encyclopedia article rather than a walking, talking billboard. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep based on in-depth treatment here and also here although the current article needs work, fluff trimmed, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Reducing the article to supported facts and reliable sources


 * How would such a revised article look? There must be a body of research - perhaps academically-centered research, on what LaMona called 'self-help topics' with which the contributions of a person, group, movement, or industry could be evaluated. That a biography doesn't do that is a weakness of the biography format; maybe that could be corrected in this and other biographical articles. Now, consider celebrities who merely entertain (but don't contribute health or other value to their audiences). They have numerous Wikipedia articles.  I think that there's little doubt that there's a claim (to be evaluated, not merely 'balanced' against criticisms).  How any such claims should be identified, then evaluated, might be a task for Wikipedians. But that effort might actually add content, not merely delete content.
 * On the DVDs, they ought to be listed somewhere else; Wikipedia isn't advertising real estate; however, many biographies have bibliographies, even extensive bibliographies. How does one contemplate the educational contributions through media appearances, media, books, articles, interviews, etc.? MaynardClark (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is academically-centered research, I have not discovered it. In fact, where self-help meets science and academe, self-help usually takes a beating (see South Beach Diet as an example). Lists of a person's own products (books, DVDs, whatever) and appearances by the person are not third-party information about the person and cannot contribute to notability. A few well-known or "best sellers" make sense in a WP article, but the full list is not relevant to the establishment of notability. It is sufficient to link to the person's web site where all of the products are list. LaMona (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Results aren't coherent at this time, relisting one last time. JAaron95 ( Talk )  18:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  ( Talk )  18:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The NYT best-seller is sufficient for notability. I've removed most of the promotionalism. The alternative would have been deletion, and this need sa check that the advertising material is not re-added.    DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite a few Wikipedia editors have worked on this so that the article is quite different from the earlier article. But in that process, each of those editors has considered both the energetic productivity (and visibility) AND the criteria of notability of the article's subject.  MaynardClark (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Maynard and WP:HEY. It has been substantially re-done since nomination. Bearian (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2015 (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.