Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary Crossley


 * 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. Clear consensus in favour of notability. BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply in this case. – bradv  🍁  23:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Rosemary Crossley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of page has requested deletion. Not sure if it's worth keeping the page up, as subject isn't extremely notable based on sources. Request: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosemary_Crossley&diff=prev&oldid=909288970 Ylevental (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I note that deletion would remove content about Anne McDonald, merged to this article 2 weeks ago. Does the nominator have a suggestion about that content? I suspect that both Rosemary Crossley and Anne McDonald could be shown to be notable, with sustained significant coverage in Australian media, none of which is currently in this article. I am trying to figure out why the articles were merged, and so far all I can find is a comment on 11 July 2019 on Talk:Rosemary Crossley saying "Most of the sources on Anne McDonald are about her dealings with Rosemary." That seems to be it. Why on earth not improve the sources??? RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to have a go at editing this article and adding sources. I know that the subject of the article should not edit it, but I have to say that I agree that the lede here is inappropriate for a BLP. Facilitated communication is hyperlinked in the very first clause, so we probably don't need the explanation which follows in the same sentence, and certainly don't need the four sentences about it in the second para of the lede. They do not relate to the subject of the article, and do not summarise the contents of the article, as a lede is supposed to do. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have started trying to edit this article. Some editors seem to be more concerned to say as many times as possible that facilitated communication is discredited than to write an objective BLP. The current edit to the lede has a second para that duplicates what is in the first. Why? I am starting to agree with the subject of the article that the only thing to do is to delete the article, even though the subject is definitely notable. However, I will try to continue adding actual information about the subject's career - which include disputed claims from very early on. I would rather like to move this to draft space, if other editors feel the need to keep adding in every paragraph that facilitated communication is discredited. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the sensible comments. As Rebecca Green says, both McDonald's page and mine have been used as platforms to criticise FC.  This is ironic, as FC is not even an Australian term.  The Australian term is FCT, facilitated communication training, referring to hands-on therapy to teach people without functional speech to use communication aids. That is also the title of my text book, published in 1994.  All of this is well after Anne McDonald fought her way out of a state institution 1n 1979, and when the book and film, both called 'Annie's Coming Out' appeared in 1980 and 1984 respectively, when neither term existed.
 * Having said that, the recent removal of Wikipedia pages about one-time participants in FCT teaching programs who've gone on to type independently, makes it hard to even suggest that there are 2 sides to this discussion.
 * A general difficulty is Wikipedia's approach to evidence, which appears to exclude primary sources, such as court judgements and medical records, and preferences secondary sources such as refereed journal articles, often with a significant selection bias. The single editor who on his/her own decided to meld McDonald's page and mine asked me, in relation to McDonald's undeniable growth of 18 inches (45 cm) after the age of 18, was there a news report that confirmed that this was unusual? A news report!  There's a compelling series of broadsheet front page photos of Anne, starting with a picture of a nurse carrying Anne out of the Supreme Court like a babe in arms in May 1979, when she was 18 years old and weighed less than 30 pounds (13.5 kg), clearly showing her increase in height from 105 cm to 150 cm, as her weight increased to 50kg.  Problem is there's no backgound site on which such photos or scans of medical records can be posted to inform editors.  Regardless of whether McDonald's growth is considered worth mentioning, the reasons given for excluding it do point up evidentiary issues.
 * Those are also shown in the inaccurate insertion about the Stubblefield case. Previous efforts to draw attention to the verdict of the Court of Appeal to correct the record have been ignored, because it isn't evidence.
 * By all means include negative comments such as 'Crossley's more recent work has been controversial, as it has been associated with the introduction of FC in the US, which has been criticised in journal articles (refs) and has resulted in some professional associations passing negative resolutions (refs).'
 * Frankly,given that there seems to be no way of preventing frequent inaccurate additions and negative slurs on McDonald and myself, I would prefer that both pages are removed. It is distressing to see McDonald's reputation trashed, and I haven't got the time to monitor both pages and line up someone to correct them, as I'm not allowed to edit either, because of conflict of interest issues - never raised about the critics. Amdc538 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia person pages aren't about their lives, they are about what they are notable for. You are notable for promoting FC/FCT, a scientifically discredited technique.  It's not about number of sides as much as what sides are reliable in this situation.  Saying FC is just as legitimate as its criticism would be like saying that flat earth theory is as legitimate as spherical earth theory. Ylevental (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , could you point me to a WP policy that says "Wikipedia person pages aren't about their lives, they are about what they are notable for", please? My understanding was that biographies, whether of living or deceased people, should include as much about the person's life, education, career and achievements for which they are notable as can be reliably referenced to independent sources, and in the case of living people, is compatible with privacy concerns (eg regarding date of birth). RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BIODD, "Don't give undue weight to traits unrelated to notability." Ylevental (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Crossley's career since 1975 has been focused on disabled people with communication difficulties. That is what 3 of her books are about, that is what she received the AM for - and that is what the controversy is about. Therefore, a biography of Crossley should set out as much as is known about her education, career and achievements as can be reliably referenced to independent sources. That is her life. I will continue to work on the Career sections of this article, adding information from reliable, independent, secondary sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How much of this work is unrelated to facilitated communication? The article makes is seem like almost all of her work is with non-verbal people. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are asking? Yes, she has worked for over 40 years with people with communication difficulties. Some continued to be non-verbal, some regained the ability to speak, etc. There is significant, sustained coverage which gives details of her work and her advocacy, and others' views and reactions to that. Ylevental suggested that the article should not be about her life, but about what she is notable for - and I replied that what she is notable for is the work she has done during her life. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * More specifically, she is notable for the work she has done in her life related to FC and people who use it. Unless I am mistaken, she is not notable for any other work? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what you are asking, sorry. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My question could not have been more clear. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please would you do me the courtesy to ping me when you reply? Perhaps I should have said that I don't understand why you keep asking what Crossley is or is not notable for, nor why it is relevant what she is notable for - she is notable. I believe that I provided the information before you asked the question. Crossley is notable for the work she has done with disabled people with communication difficulties. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. And all of that work is with FC users. She is notable for FC. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So what is your point? Per WP:BLPFRINGE, we don't just say "She is notable for FC, and this is what is wrong with FC". We are required to "write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject." That is what I have started trying to do. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The psuedoscientific nature of FC changes the whole story. Failing to convey to the reader what is really going on is non-neutral. Pseudoscience guidelines make that extremely clear. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you see that I referred to and quoted from Fringe theories? That is the relevant policy, so what I quoted applies. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Andrew Wakefield article points out right away that he is discredited and unethical, and if the Rosemary Crossley article were to be kept, it should do the same. Ylevental (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not degenerating to the subject to give due weight to science. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going to follow the policy and write "a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject." If there are sources which specifically refer to Crossley or her work as being discredited and/or unethical, then I will include them. We should not say that if she specifically has not been discredited. The Andrew Wakefield is not an exact comparison, as Crossley is not a doctor, has not been struck off a medical register, and I have not seen any evidence that she has written fraudulent research papers. I have already found sources from quite early on that disagree with and challenge her, and I expect that I will find more as I search. They should and will be included. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Facilitated communication is discredited per Wikipedia's consensus. Sources that are unskeptical of FC are pushing fringe. In a balanced article, the appropriate amount of weight to give to the pro-FC narrative is zero. I haven't seen any sources accusing her of fraud. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a false balance. It would be like allowing sources that promote flat earth theory Ylevental (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the policy WP:BLPFRINGE, I suggest that you initiate a discussion to change it. Also, I have not said anything about promotional sources - I have stated several times that the sources I have found include statements from people who disagree or challenge her. Please stop arguing needlessly! RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not the correct interpretation of WP:BLPFRINGE. See Ylevental's comment about false balance. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Some critics have protected their pages against any edits or comments. This is Ylevental's page
 * "Hello, this is my Wikipedia page Ylevental (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No more agenda based editing or hiding. I get it. Ylevental (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)"
 * On July 3 she/he promised 'no more agenda based editing or hiding'. This was after she'd been instrumental in removing the pagers of people, most of whom were women) who had started using communication aids with facilitation but now do so independently. Hiding the evidence, ableist attitudes and terminology seem to be a large part of Wikipedia's 'consensus.  Wikiman2718, you joined up about 3 months ago.  Please tell us how that 'consensus' was reached, and how wiping out the achievements of people with disabilities and refusing to recognise the extreme suffering to which many have been subject, as Anne McDonald was, as worthy of notice, is Wikipedia's policy.
 * BTW I'm busy working on a low-cost eye-gaze communication system for people who can't use their hands, costing less than a fifth of commercial 'disability-priced' systems. The free 'recipe' will be available at Australia's national AAC conference at the end of August, so interested therapists, teachers and family members can set up their own.  The accompanying free multiple-choice activities I have written are now being used on iPads to allow people who can't talk and who can only choose clearly independently between 2-4 items to demonstrate advanced literacy and numeracy skills.  Not just people with autism - people with ABD, CP, DS etc - are demonstrating skills Wikipedia doesn't want to recognise.
 * I'm too busy to keep on. Rebecca Green, thank you for your common sense and concern.Amdc538 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't about gender, this is about how falsely claiming someone can communicate through FC is notable. Show me the page of one man which is only about communicating through FC that has not been removed.  Additionally, I have a strong suspicion that there is some WP:COI between you and Rebecca.  If this is true, you probably shouldn't edit the Rosemary Crossley page, but leave suggestions on the talkpage.  I am suspicious because of your belief in false balance. Ylevental (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is a strong accusation, some editors may see it as typical of a wikibully to cast such aspersions on an editor of good standing. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ps. and to "scare off" some editors from partaking in this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is your perception that I believe in false balance. I am trying to implement the policy WP:BLPFRINGE as it stands. As for WP:COI, I know no more of Crossley than I do of any other subject which I find through AfD, PROD or declined AfC, and then research and attempt to improve the articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't look into it further, but you seem to be really defensive of her... same with but I won't look into it Ylevental (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * and the allegations continue.... personally, i'm goint to have a nice cup of Assam. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, have been bold and undone the redirect/merge of Anne McDonald as i believe she is notable enough to have a standalone article, please see that talkpage.Coolabahapple (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Every mention of Anne McDonald involves Rosemary Crossley Ylevental (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Subject is notable and passes WP:GNG. The article should not be deleted, but it can be improved by WP:NEUTRAL editing. Netherzone (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. the individual is notable, not just borderline notable, so there is no basis in policy for deleting the article. . The fairness of the article can be discussed elsewhere, but as I understand WP:BLPFRINGE, we do state the general opinion is that FC is not generally accepted, but we we do not over-emphasise this. When we include a bio of a person, we discuss their life and their work. The work is almost always an integral part of the reason for their notability and we cannot avoid it. The discussion of the various opinions on FC in general belongs in the subject article, but the discussion of the specific work the individual has  done is relevant in the bio. Eben so, it needs to be controlled--we writebios to give information about people, not to judge them.  It's the reader who will be doing the judging.  DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable subject, agree with and "AFD is not cleanup". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: the references present in the article show that the subject meets WP:BASIC / WP:NFRINGE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2019 (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.