Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parker Marie Molloy


 * 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. Although Carrite's additions are impressive, if Bearcat wishes this to be closed as no consensus later on, I can change my close. But procedurally, this is a keep close.  Wifione  Message 15:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Parker Marie Molloy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Most sourcing is to blogs and self-published material, and the most significant recognition is by a non-notable organization. The only other recognition is from a local specialty publication. The article appears to be maintained by friends of the subject as an inside joke. The article’s subject apparently edits this page and encourages vandalism of the page, including adding false/defamatory content. Recommend delete and salt for both this and Parker Molloy. BruinsR4eva (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete and salt as nominator. BruinsR4eva (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The most significant recognition, Ms. Molloy's inclusion in the Trans 100, is not "non-notable." Trans 100 was covered by GLAAD, BuzzFeed, and The Advocate. Further, it is incorrect to state "most sourcing is to blogs and self-published material" - the lead notes her publication at a variety of sources:


 * The Advocate
 * The New York Times
 * HelloGiggles
 * Red Eye
 * Slate
 * Rolling Stone
 * The Daily Beast
 * The Huffington Post

Review of the alleged edits by Ms. Molloy indicate all are negative and refer to Ms. Molloy as a "troll" and vandalism such as: "Molloy also for some reason thinks that she is famous when in reality she writes grade school reading level articles for websites that no one reads. She also has little to no sense of humor and enjoys seeking out reasons to complain about non existent issues. At this point I'd say grow a pair but, too late." As such, it is reasonable to surmise that the individual with the username "ParkerMolloy" is not Ms. Molloy.

As the controversy section indicates, Ms. Molloy is frequently discussed in the LGBT press, including The Advocate, Queerty, Huffington Post, and others. She has been brought in as an expert by Dan Savage on several occasions to discuss transgender issues. As such, she does not fail WP:JOURNALIST; she meets qualifications 1, (maybe) 3, and 4.

Notice of COI: I sometimes Tweet at Ms. Molloy. On occasions she listens. Emily Esque (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What you need to provide to get her over one of our notability rules is sourcing in which she's the subject — sourcing in which she's the bylined author of an article or an opinion piece about something else might speak to the notability of the thing she's writing about (unless she's writing about herself, in which case it's a primary source), but it does not confer notability on her. If she's the author of the content, then yes, it is self-published (and therefore invalid) sourcing regardless of what platform or media outlet she happens to be writing it for — stuff she's written about herself would be acceptable for additional verification of facts after enough of the reliable kind of sourcing had been added to get her over our notability rules, but it cannot contribute to the process of getting her over our notability rules. To make her notable enough for a Wikipedia, you would need to cite a lot more media coverage, in which she is the subject of content being written by somebody else, than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WP:NUKEANDPAVE pertains here. She might certainly qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but that's not what this version is — this relies entirely too much on sourcing in which she's the author, not the subject, of the reference, and that kind of sourcing counts for exactly nothing toward demonstrating that she's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Accordingly, it would be easier to restart from scratch than it would be to repair all the problems with this version. Delete, without prejudice against creation of a better version in the future. I'd also be willing to accept sandboxing in user or draft space so that it can be worked on, but it's not entitled to stay in articlespace in this form with this quality of sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to explain the interpretation of notability. From my review of the article, the following sources reference Ms. Molloy as the subject, rather than as an author (COI - I added the Open Letter; I'm also a signatory):
 * Parker Marie Molloy's Transphobic and Homophobic Slurs Don't Matter, but Our Response Does
 * Op-ed: Burning Books, One Word at a Time
 * About the Word "Tranny"
 * “I F*cking Hate @RuPaul”
 * RuPaul's Drag Race and the Danger of Overpolicing Language
 * Open Letter: 350+ Trans Women and Transfeminine People Stand Against Calpernia Addams and Andrea James
 * Trans Violence Watchdogs Issue Advisory Warning Against Advocate Writer And Trans Activist Parker Molloy
 * Park That Attitude: The Danger of Trans Activist Parker Marie Molloy
 * Parker Marie Molloy : A clear and present danger.
 * Trans Violence Watchdogs Issue Advisory Warning Against Advocate Writer And Trans Activist Parker Molloy
 * Parker Molloy Resigns From Advocate, Lashes Out At Former Colleagues

Also, a quick Google turned up this from GLAAD, mentioning Ms. Molloy as a subject:
 * Author of "Transphobia is Perfectly Natural" asked to take a leave from ad agency

I understand that it takes more than an author writing about herself to be notable, but there is a rather substantial body of articles dedicated to talking about Ms. Molloy from a variety of LGBT publications. Emily Esque (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem being the necessity of rewriting the article to replace all the bad sourcing — which is why I suggested that it be sandboxed so that you and other interested editors have time to do that. But also Queerty, Freethoughtblogs, Blogspot and Boing Boing don't really count as reliable sources either, so you don't have as much of the good kind of sourcing yet as you thought you did. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a good example of what a good WP page for a burgeoning journalist that has attained notability *should* look like?Emily Esque (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Journalists are notoriously hard to source out for GNG because rival publications don't tend to write about them and their own publications' writings are "self-sourced." That in mind, THIS piece on this pioneering transsexual activist and journalist from the Windy City Times clearly counts to GNG, while THIS from the Huffington Post and THIS from Queerty.com indicates status as public figure. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Even removing Queerty, FTB, Blogspot, and BoingBoing, you still have several HuffPo articles, the Stranger, the Advocate, and GLAAD discussing the subject. Clearly meets WP:JOURNALIST 1, 3, 4. Emily Esque (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Never let it be said that Emily Esque does not beat dead horses into paste. You asked for more sourcing, and by the heavens you shall have it. Additional sources referring to Molloy as subject:
 * Washington Post (re: Chelsea Manning)
 * The Week (re: transgender identity in general)
 * Autostraddle (re: transgender women being "born boys")
 * Salon (re: Piers Morgan's transphobic interview with Janet Mock)
 * Jezebel discussion of the HuffPostGay article which included a video of a parody of Molloy being shot in the head
 * An interview with Gothamist (regarding the Janet Mock and Grantland stories, among other things)
 * A panel of the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association, where Molloy participated as a panelist on transgender journalism
 * Her nomination as a finalist for the Los Angeles Press Club's National Arts and Entertainment Journalism awards for her work on drag culture and the use of the "t-word" (that inspired much of the "Controversies" section).

I do believe we can put this nomination for deletion to bed as factually inaccurate (Molloy does not edit this page) and incorrect (Molloy has clearly meets GNG guidelines and WP:JOURNALIST). Emily Esque (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Bylines do not demonstrate notability. As Bearian said, blogging about notable people or for notable publications does not make a journalist notable. 2. Blogs and self-published sources do not demonstrate notability. EmilyEsque's first bulleted list is comprised of special-interest group blogs or publications: Gay/transgendered Not gay/transgendered - Parker Marie Molloy is mentioned but not primary subject 3. Passing mentions and references to bylines do not demonstrate notability. EmilyEsque's other bulleted list is comprised of these. 4. All recognition is from non-notable organizations: 5. WP:BLP1E. The blog posts with "Parker Marie Molloy" or variants in the title seem to be about one controversy involving language. Parker Marie Molloy criticized RuPaul's language, but then she resigned from at least two writing jobs because others criticized her own language. Starting a fight with a notable person does not make someone notable. 6. The only time this person has been mentioned in a book is in her autobiography for Thought Catalog, a non-notable publisher. Even Parker Marie Molloy describes Thought Catalog as “an open platform where (virtually) anyone can publish whatever they want.” She seems to have resigned from there as well. The original nomination has been amended because User:ParkerMolloy got blocked. Articles about people involved in one controversial topic often attract vandalism from detractors, but in this case even Parker Marie Molloy encourages friends to vandalize the page on her behalf. She even posts pictures of the vandalism she requested. This kind of disruption by non-notable people wastes everyone’s time and damages the project. Reiterate delete and salt vote. BruinsR4eva (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment in response:
 * Queerty.com blog (4)
 * Huffington Post Gay Voices news aggregator/blog (2)
 * Advocate.com (1)
 * PlanetTransgender.blogspot.com (1)
 * Glaad.org self-published blog (1)
 * FreeThoughtBlogs.com – blog
 * TheStranger.com – website for free local alternative newspaper in Seattle
 * BoingBoing.net - blog
 * The Trans 100 is not notable enough to have its own article. Also, one of the Queerty posts quotes Parker Marie apparently threatening the Trans 100 with "freezing them out of anything I ever write," after which she was added to that list.
 * The Los Angeles Press Club and its National Arts and Entertainment Journalism Awards are not notable enough to have their own articles.
 * Windy City Times' 30 Under 30 is not notable enough to have its own article, and except for notable country music singer Steve Grand, no other listee has a stand-alone Wikipedia article.


 * Keep Thanks to Carrite's search for reliable sources turn up enough in-depth articles to establish WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2014 (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.