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 and redirect to Wife Swap#Other Special Editions. My reading of the sources here is that almost any notability that Silver might possess is related to Wife Swap, and thus any information on her should be in that article. Turning it around, we could ask the question "would there be any notability whatsoever if this person had not appeared on that program", and the answer, despite a few minor media appearances and the ordinance issue, is clearly "no". Not to mention that there's a clear consensus to delete here. However, since Silver is already mentioned briefly in the WS article, any other encyclopedic information can be mentioned there, as long it does not amount to an attempt to recreate this article via the back door. Black Kite 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Subject fails WP:N, the bulk of references fails WP:RS. Inclusion of this person in WP is just ridiculous. WP is an encyclopedia, and the most popular one at that, would you include someone like this person in an encylopedia? – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Silver - at the very least - passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. More specifically, I'll try to explain why. First, WP:Notability says, topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic — although those may contribute... If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Significant coverage (directly in regards to Silver) is present in the two Wife Swap shows, the GMA Now interview, the Sirius Satellite Radio interview(s), and the feature article(s) in local/national papers. The majority of these sources in addition to the rest of the article's are "reliable," "secondary," and "independent of the subject," also passing ONEEVENT. I might have a personal belief regarding metaphysics, but I'm confident that the sources speak for themselves. While message boards/blogs are generally not appropriate for inclusion in the article itself, I listed a lot of examples of these in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_14, showing that Silver has been discussed many times by the general public, as well. Before one considers deletion, we should first ask ourselves what is notable. Silver is not a Sylvia Browne, but she's been covered enough to warrant an article. Spring12 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Major cleanup is probably appropriate for the article in the long-term, but I added a few tags for now. Spring12 (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A mockery of Wikipedia. How about other people who appeared at Wipe Swap, do they have WP articles? Mention of this clown's name on so-called references are merely collateral, the article's creator seeks to idiotize us by using them. The only direct reference is subject's website, but obviously fails WP:RS. Portrayal as a "philosopher" is inaccurate as subject holds a philosophy "degree" from an unaccredited diploma mill. The other Wipe Swap folks were also seen by the same number of people, if that is our basis then let us create WP articles for each one of them! A previous unanymous AfD already decided delete, what is this garbage doing here still? – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Just one note: please don't call the subject of an article a "clown", specially when we are talking about living persons. It just makes wikipedia look bad when outside people read these discussions.) The article was restored because of the DRV here (click on the "show" word to see the archived discussion there). I don't agree with the DRV closure, but it's too late to change it. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon, you have been repeatedly warned to tone down your personal attacks. I think calling the subject of articles "clowns" is a WP:BLP violation. Ikip (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Foolish enough to be notable, which is why the papers picked it up. DGG (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There are many RSes in the references section that cover her so WP:N would seem be met. ONEEVENT could be argued, but I don't believe it applies here as the coverage spans a fairly wide period of time. Disclaimer: I was canvassed by Sping12. Hobit (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked DGG to join as well, because you guys participated in the deletion review, sorry if I bothered you... Spring12 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete We don't consider notable people who has appeared in one chapter of a TV show, and we most certainly don't have a separate article for each one of them. For the rest of supposedly notable stuff, please read WP:PEOPLE#Basic_criteria and the "Additional criteria" section, and explain which criteria she is meeting, because I don't see any being met. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I don't think we should fill Wikipedia full of Bios of every person who appears on a reality TV show. How does that add value to the encyclopedia? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete A tough call, but I finally decided that the person doesn't meet notability standards. Owning a private school and appearing on a reality television show doesn't make a person notable enough for inclusion here. 3-rd party sources exist, but there are relatively few. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Changed to weak keep Thought it over, and decided that there are enough reliable 3-rd party sources for this to qualify as sufficiently notable. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This is reliably sourced, so there's not much else to decide, I think.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Painfully reluctant weak keep. If I were King of Wikipedia, I would agree with the nominator, and the article needs a real scrubbing, but the WP:N standards are objective, not subjective, and with a rewrite, this article would squeak by under that standard. However, I would prefer a merge and redirect to Wife Swap or List of episodes of Wife Swap. THF (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources are weak at best. Shot info (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The vast majority of the references I can find or have been presented are trivial coverage, which does not provide appropriate material for writing an article. That there are several such mentions indicates a likelihood of future notability, but not present. The source to the statement that her book is "award-winning" is Caryn Day-Suarez Publicity Consulting, which would not pass WP:CREATIVE if confirmed. The sources to local newspapers (Florida Times-Union and St. Augustine Record) come close in my judgment, but the one is primarily about local regulation of psychics with a human-interest face, and the other is just a puff piece. Note: Shannon Rose (talk · contribs) notified me of this discussion, presumably because I participated in the last AfD. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Spring12 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This person hawks "New Age" blather, as do thousands of other right-thinking US-Americans, and she's been on the telly, as have tens if not hundreds of thousands of ditto. She's got something calling itself a "PhD", when tens of thousands have genuine PhDs. Where's the notability? Hang on -- she's been written up in the L A Times! It's not every new-age-monger or self-styled "metaphysician" -- complete with a link to Metaphysics, an article that describes the fruits of seemingly irrelevant hard thinking -- who gets written up there, so let's a look at the linked article. Here's what it says about her: The Silvers, who have two quirky, artistically inclined sons, revolve around the mother, Sheree, who is a psychic and who initially fails to impress Richard. "Sheree's like a clogged drain, OK? Things aren't happening," he barks. (Keeping "WP:NPA" in mind, I refrain from adding the short and uninformative insult of Richard's that follows.) That's all that the LA Times says about her: nothing about her "metaphysical" or other accomplishments. Ah, what else? She's written a book. This comes complete with an improper but for our purposes convenient link to a specific retailer, which rates its sales at #4,351,139 among books, and says it comes from "Infinity Publishing", a new name to me. Here's "Infinity Publishing", which obligingly publishes anything that you pay it to publish. This person's notability (either in Wikipedia terms or according to the normal understanding) is infinitesimal. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom, and others. Check out the blather from Spring on this page. He/she has a blatant COI and as long as this article exists it could never be encyclopedic. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Forgot to give an example of the failings of this mishmash. The article makes much of Silver owning a private school, spiritual centre and gift shop. The reference for that says the following "Also since the show, Sheree Silver closed her store in St. Augustine Beach, the Shiloh Spiritual Center and Mystic Gifts and Jewelry shop." Got that, the reference says the exact opposite of what is claimed in the article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed your example (owns to "owned"), what else? Spring12 (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is this "blatant COI", and why should it be an issue here? Even if somebody does have a COI, that person can be instructed not to edit and the article can survive. Also, I see nothing intrinsically unencyclopedic about defunct businesses. I'm sure that the article should go, but for neither of these non-reasons. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hoary, I opposed "per nom and others". I then commented about the author of this article having a COI, which seems to me to be driving the insertion of absolute trivia to this article. Check out this ghastly version largely created by Spring, which I edited. Spring has made 160 plus edits to the article, mainly pushing trivia/pov, and an amazing 16 to this AfD page as well, which you would have to agree shows a dedication to a cause. You queried the "blatant COI". Asked on his/her talk page whether there was COI, Spring replied "I've been helped in the field, but I'd rather not disclose a lot of information in regards to Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information." I believe that if this article were kept, Spring would continually modify it so that at no time was it encyclopedic. As well as seconding "nom and others", that is also a consideration IMMHO.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look, if you see fishy editing of an article, you may suspect COI. While keeping this suspicion to yourself, you then look for evidence outside the article for COI, and, if you find this, you announce your suspicion of COI. By contrast, all you have done is found what you regard as fishy editing. Aside from alleging that the writer has assiduously written up Silver's minor achievements and minor appearances (which any writer is welcome to do, and which strikes me as a bit surprising but not fishy), you've presented no evidence for COI. This is the kind of stuff that's needed for a COI rap. -- Hoary (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatantly promotional article with not enough reliable sources about her to satisfy WP:N. ThemFromSpace 03:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Instant reaction is to hit the delete button, but the Good Morning America exclusive interview convinced me of some notability (and sent me ROFL). The interview is not related to the wife swap thing, so it's not 1E. I'm basically on par wih THF. This article lifted my spirits this morning. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm game for some edjication in metaphysics or whatever -- however, I can't see which link this is. -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is the link: [1]. Spring12 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, sorry for only returning now Power.corrupts (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is this doing back again? The list of sources put up in the DRV looks impressive, but includes messageboards and other unreliable sources, and trivial mentions. I was never notified of the DRV, despite being the original nominator for deletion, and if I had been, I'd have deconstructed this list. It should never have been undeleted. I mean, look at some of the items: "this artist provides images of the jewelry store Silver used to own". There's not substantially more notability here than there was before, nor is it at all likely that any more information will be upcoming. At most, she might deserve a mention in the Wife Swap article, but not her own article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies to Shoemaker's Holiday and other original AFD users for not notifying of deletion review, I was not aware of [Wikipedia:CANVASS] at the time. For this discussion, between the nom. and I, I believe everybody involved in both cases has been notified now. Spring12 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails to make any of our feeble standards for notability and verifiability. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the head of WP:BIO it says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" I think an interview on Good Morning America and local newspaper coverage are published, secondary, reliable, and independent. Could you explain why you disagree? Hobit (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Being a "good interview" on Good Morning America, appearing on a reality TV show, and being discussed in the local newspaper are not sufficient to make a person notable. Additionally, as others have pointed out, many of the citations in the article are non-WP:RS and/or don't actually support the information in the article. --Orlady (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the head of WP:BIO it says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" I think an interview on Good Morning America and local newspaper coverage are published, secondary, reliable, and independent. Could you explain why you disagree? Hobit (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The coverage is trivial, and there is no indication that this person has received or been often nominated for a notable award or honor, has been often nominated for them or has made any widely recognized contribution in her specific field. For that matter, I'm not quite sure what her specific field is, other than perhaps being an interesting "oddball". --Orlady (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is, actually, proof that she has received a "notable honor." The Wife Swap Viewer Vote was a contest with 24 families for the show's 100th episode. Viewers could vote for three weeks for their favorite past families, and Silver and another family were chosen for a special "reswap," the first in the show's five-year history. Her field is Metaphysical Philosophy, and she gives readings/lectures, etc. Spring12 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being an audience favorite on a reality TV show is not a "notable honor" within the usual meaning of that term and giving readings and lectures is not usually considered to constitute a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record." As for "metaphysical philosophy", the fact that one can get a degree with that title from a New Age education purveyor outside the academic mainstream does not make it a recognized field of endeavor (also, note that holding a PhD from any institution -- even a reputable one -- does not make a person notable). --Orlady (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikitionary defines 'honor' as "An objectification of praiseworthiness, respect. (I.e., something that represents praiseworthiness, respect.)" Being voted by "America" must mean Silver and her family were liked enough to be the first ones to reswap in the show's history, fulfilling the definition of "honor." That it was the show's 100th episode should be the "notable" factor. Furthermore, the "additional citera" under WP:Notability (people) recognizes Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. The things you mentioned are extra pieces of evidence supporting Silver's notability. Spring12 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sometimes an article with an unusual subject can deserve keeping because there has been a lot of well-documented attention. However, the discussion at User talk:Kaiwhakahaere#Sheree Silver does not inspire confidence. If Spring12 is going to throw out a whole bunch of marginal sources and hope that some of them stick, it suggests that the case for the subject being notable is still in doubt. The 'PhD in Metaphysical Philosophy' and the comparison to Hilary Putnam is what made me think that Spring12 was on the wrong track, and Spring12 is the main creator of this article. You think I am making this up, but the article says: When Silver first moved to Florida she was not allowed to practice her metaphysical career due to a 1972 county ordinance regarding residential qualification and reputation for fortune-tellers and clairvoyants. Will this person still be important to the readers of Wikipedia in five years? Writing a self-published book with a sales rank of 4,351,139? EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ed, remember that Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines encourages discussing the issue at hand (not contributors), and according to WP:Notability "Notability is not temporary." Please evaluate all the info available, not just the book. Thanks. Spring12 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although the next sentence of WP:NOTNEWS begins "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event..." which is apparent from the Florida Times Union article, Sirius Satellite Radio talk shows, and GMA Now interview (which do not mention the two appearances on Wife Swap). Plus, the news "Wife Swap" wasn't an "announcement," "sports," or "tabloid journalism" if it was covered by the NY Daily News. Spring12 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm getting more and more confused. I'd thought that the NY Daily News wasn't merely a tabloid but was the first and one of the best known of tabloids. (But perhaps my confusion just results from being young, dim or senile: see below.) Also, and as Eldereft pointed out several centimetres above, the FTU article isn't about Silver; it's about legislation, with her as an example. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oops, you're right about the New York Daily (I've striked my observation accordingly). Regarding FTU: I know the article isn't 100% "about" Silver, in this context I was just giving it as an example of how she's passed ONEEVENT. Spring12 (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • not allowed to practice her metaphysical career: at least "metaphysical" isn't linked to Metaphysics. Elsewhere, WP's vulnerable (young, senile, dim, etc) readers are provided with such nuggets as In the metaphysics of the "New Age Prophetess", Alice Bailey, in her system called the Seven Rays which classifies humans into seven different metaphysical psychological types, the "second ray" of "love-wisdom" is represented by the color indigo (example from Indigo). Perhaps Metaphysics should be turned into a disambig, a choice between Metaphysics (philosophy) and Metaphysics (piffle). -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hoary, please remember to be WP:Civil in regards to readers. This is also a bit unrelated to the deletion discussion. Spring12 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps I should have added that I don't think all WP's readers, or even the majority, fall into one or other of the classes "young, senile, dim, etc." -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe I'm being elitist, but I honestly can't imagine anyone wanting to read an article about some nobody who appeared twice on a reality television series. What next? An article on the best-looking chick from Studs? -- llywrch (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly. Please see WP:HOTTIE. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You never watched "Studs", have you? -- llywrch (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Guilty as charged. I had indeed never watched nor even heard of "Studs", which sounded so alarmingly close to a gay porn production that I'd assumed it was a typo for a soap opera unoriginally titled "Suds". (There I was, dreaming of good-looking chicks, partly submerged in bubble baths.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, what's next? My decision rule is if it meets policy WP:V and WP:SOURCES. If the criteria merely was if I wanted to read it, 99+ percent of Wikipedia could be deleted: sports, TV series, manga, Harry Potter, Sheree Silver's page; the list is endless. But Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. It's the independent media's (weakly) mention of her person that earns her inclusion, not her "PhD in metaphysical philosophy", her spiritual clinic, book, clairvoyance, her discussions with her deceased grandfather, or some of her other colorfull skills. Passing neutral mention of the book does not make it a "blatantly promotional article", perhaps the real litmus test would be if you would be marginally more inclined to buy the book after reading the article, or watching Good Morning America. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is exactly what Wikipedia should not be--a place where people who are within a long-arm's reach of notable for some obscure event use that event to pitch their product, ideology, etc. Vartanza (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom et al not enough non trivial coverage in RS, and entirely non notable. This is merely a promotional page and should be deleted. Verbal chat 08:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough to warrant an article. Brunton (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article fails to establish notability. Hekerui (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article "fails to establish notability," please tag it so. The discussion is whether an article on Silver is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks. Spring12 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Spring12 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC),[reply]
  • How is this related to philosophy? -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Silver's a Ph.D. in Metaphysical Philosophy -- Spring12 (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh yes, right, and from the College of Metaphysical Studies, no less. I wonder if her dissertation is available from the usual source. -- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This could lead to Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Personal_point_of_view, let's try to stay on topic. -- Spring12 (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Spring12 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this fluff - not a hard call at all. this person has received only trivial coverage - everyone who 'appears' on a reality or talk show is NOT automatically notable. in addition, the sources do not recognize any notability on her part. as an example of the egregious synth and streeeetching that this article does to make her appear notable, take this story used as a source for the statement, "The Silver family . . . received a review of "voyeurism" from the LA Times." [2] The story describes several participants in the show, "Take Myra Chi, (notice the red link?) martial arts mini-magnate, who on last week's "Wife Swap" embedded with the Edwards family, which runs a community theater group on a shoestring" and describes Silver as "the mother . . . who is a psychic." hey, if the martial arts mini-magnate doesn't have her own article . . .  ;) and what on earth does "received a review of "voyeurism" mean?? is it because the word voyeurism is in the title of the story? the whole article is full of this kind of stuff - not notable, full stop. untwirl(talk) 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those like that Myra Chi you mentioned do not pass ONEEVENT. Silver does. (Two separate Wife Swap episodes, unrelated GMA interview/Satellite Radio interviews, FTU story.) As far as the LA Times ref, it's the closest criticism I've found from a RS. I revised the sentence, does it read any better? Spring12 (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that example is what i'm referring to as trivial coverage being overemphasized to make her appear notable. My point with those quotes was to show you that even the LA Times found the other contestants more deserving of in-depth description than Silver. untwirl(talk) 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if examples are being overemphasized, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Overemphasis is not a reason for deletion according to Wikipedia:Deletion#Reasons for deletion. Spring12 (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Note: Wife Swap is not a "game show" with contestants, families swap lives for two weeks. Spring12 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that was just one out of many examples. editors who read the article and peruse the sources will have no trouble determining that most, if not all, of the rest are trivial as well. untwirl(talk) 03:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC) note: it is, as i said, a reality show, and being on a reality show (even twice - for two weeks!) does not make her notable. untwirl(talk) 03:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference Proof_by_assertion, users have already pointed out how Silver meets notability guidelines. Spring12 (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and i respectfully disagree; i think the coverage she has received is trivial, therefore not fulfilling the notability requirement. don't accuse me of fallacious argument when i am simply clarifying my position in response to your (repeated) misinterpretation. untwirl(talk) 12:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with untwirl: all this trivial stuff together does not add up to the required "substantial coverage"; it's a thin pile of fluff, not adding up to any meaningful substance. What's the line? "Like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me apologize if my observation came off as an accusation. Second, see this: (local paper reporter gets a past life regression) [3] and this (she writes an article for her local paper) [4]. She has received non-trivial coverage for years.Spring12 (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those look very trivial to me. (And her article is a dismaying series of unargued assertions, unadulterated by any evidence, though this objection is by the way here.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No, other editors have used proof by assertion to show these mentions meet notability standards. When we get to the bottom line, the only reason to include her in Wikipedia is that she appeared in two episodes of a reality show -- which is what was discussed in US mainstream media. Now if she used this 15 minutes of fame to further her visibility in some way -- for example, she became an activist for numerology -- then she would be notable. This is where Silver is similar to, say, someone who appears twice on Jeopardy! (Ken Jenkins being almost the only notable contestant on that show), but different from someone on "Survivor" -- where the contestants are seen by the viewers sufficient times for them to actually become familiar. -- llywrch (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, you make some good points. The original reason for "US mainstream media" notability is probably Wife Swap, for the reasons you mentioned. However, the GMA interview and six times on satellite radio (interviews on metaphysical topics), came after the first episode (although the interviews didn't mention Wife Swap), and would fill the "continuation" category. The second Wife Swap episode would follow a few months later, with her family being voted for in a style similar to Dancing with the Stars. There's a lot of trivial coverage in addition to these, yes, but I should think they would count for something a lot more than "fluff." Just my thoughts, Spring12 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, she appeared in three ephemeral TV shows, and a little trivial coverage mentioning those shows. There are no reliable sources for creating a biography out of that. If we removed the statements from the article justified by patently bad sources, we'd be left with a paragraph of material, and no possibility of expansion. This should be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"we'd be left with a paragraph of material, and no possibility of expansion" is not a valid Wikipedia:DEL#Reasons_for_deletion. In addition to my earlier thoughts, Silver should be notable under WP:N (people) because she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject, (GMA, the St. Aug Record, Sirius Satellite Radio). (Note: Wife Swap is not ephemeral, because it airs in syndication on Lifetime) Spring12 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At last I've seen this Good Morning America thing. It's no wonder that the US and A is down the tubes when a major teevee channel employs a talking head who brightly informs the booboisie that The science of numerology has been in existence for thousands of years (my emphasis) and then unashamedly puts the video on the web rather than, say, embarrassedly scrubbing all copies of the video and sending the talking head back to junior high school. After the talking head has so misintroduced her, Silver spouts some bollocks about how, using this ancient wisdom, you regard somebody born on (my example) 8 September 1936 as being 8+9+1+9+3+6=36, and 3+6=9, and thus "9". That's it: you just keep on adding digits (ignoring the powers of ten) till you reach a single digit. So [as we use a decimal system] there are only ten options. That's two fewer than are used in mindless women's magazines, and the whole edifice is built on the delusion of Silver and others that there's something ineluctable about the decimal system (there isn't) or the Gregorian calendar as more or less fixed in the anglosphere around the 18th century (there isn't). However, WP:BOLLOCKS requires that we avoid writing bollocks, not that we avoid writing up would-be propagators of bollocks. Yes, I concede that Silver got to spout it on some mass-market atrocity called Good Morning America, and that this is actual evidence for Wikipedia-style "notability". One or two more such bits of evidence and you'll sway me into a cold-sweating "keep" !vote. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Hoary, can't help a correction here. You did notice that Obama had an 11 in his numerology, very powerful indeed for reasons I have now forgot, only later was it reduced to the important 2 (two), a strong sign af coorperation, etc. Point is that it's a lot more complicated than "you just keep on adding digits". As I remember, street numbers were also significant enough to be included in the calculations. This little video gem has eternal qualities. I would still say that the sum of all this media exposure earns here (weak) inclusion, and the page needs an overhaul. Power.corrupts (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Street numbers, yes. For years, I lived in an entirely separate house (not merely apartment) from a TV news announcer who shared my exact same address. (This was legitimate: neither of us charged that the other had usurped the number. Such are the vagaries of Tokyo addresses.) I wonder what a numerologist would make of that. Now and again parts of Tokyo are reassigned and renumbered; I wonder what this does to the inhabitants' "vibrations". (But I'll venture a guess: anything, since "vibration" is merely a fiction.) What we can agree to describe as "a little video gem" is indeed a must-see, if for reasons other than those suspected at the time by either of its on-screen participants. -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Non-notable, fancruft ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thanks for joining in the discussion. That's is one of Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions, please explain your reasoning. Spring12 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: OK, I don't think she is notable and, as an aside, the article is non-neutral. As a further aside, I don't think commenting on nearly every other editor's !vote is advancing your arguments. – ukexpat (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off as overly contentious. I've just been reading Wikipedia:AfD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD a lot and I've been trying to keep the discussion on task. I've tried not to respond to every comment, but sometimes I feel thus inclined. Hope you understand, and please don't take it personally. :-) P.S. - I'll tag the article for neutrality, but if that's the main issue, it shouldn't be too hard to fix. Spring12 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bouncy Spring, Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions is an essay not a policy. Can you please stop hassling everyone who disagree with your COI with regards to keeping this bullshit? Everytime someone comes here to voice their thoughts against this hideous embarassment that you fantasize to be notable, you confront them with all the tricks in the book and wikilawyer versus their rights to self-expression. Your agenda is to make it appear that all editors who are for deletion are either dead wrong or ignorant of policy, as if you're the great genius editor who knows everything and is going to save Wikipedia through this article. – Shannon Rose (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you can present good evidence, external to this article and AfD, for COI, then present it. As long as you're limited to speculation about motives and little would-be jokes about others' usernames, take a break elsewhere. Spring12 hasn't "hassled" anyone, and is fully entitled to cross-examine anyone about a comment, just as you are. And if Spring12 is using "all the tricks in the book" (an assertion with which I'd disagree), I'd rather have a skilled debater than somebody who huffs and puffs ineffectually about "the great genius editor who knows everything" and so forth. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:N, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a rationale for deletion. Artw (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - notable crackpot. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't argue with the "crackpot" part, but just where is the notability? -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried revising the article by giving more background info (from the local paper stories). Does it establish her notability better? Spring12 (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because it's all trivia. True, the article is improving, but it's got a long way to go. Try the very first sentence: Sheree Lynne Jackson Silver, (born 8 December 1958 in London, England) is a Doctor in Metaphysical Philosophy[1][2] with theories from influencing the weather[3] to colors.[4] "Metaphysical" has a link (via "Metaphysic") to Metaphysics, which as described in my copy of the Oxford Companion to Philosophy (or even Wikipedia) has nothing to do with the outfit that appears to have given her her something called a "doctorate". The particular claim that she has a doctorate in "Metaphysical Philosophy" has two quasi-sources, one of which is Silver's own website: tantamount to saying that the woman has a doctorate and you can believe this because she says so. For that matter, the other source isn't actually a source: instead, it says that one "Dr. Sheree Silver" is the contact person in St Augustine, Fla, for "The College of Metaphysical Studies (CMS) / The Educational Division of New Awareness Ministries, International"; it does not say what "Dr." means for her. But let's assume that her 1.4MB PDF file is a scan of the genuine article: that she indeed has a doctorate from "The College of Metaphysical Studies". How is this accredited? If not at all, or only trivially, then why is her "doctorate" announced in the first sentence without any disclaimer? -- Hoary (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been looking for info regarding this college's accreditation, because it's not listed under List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning. So far I've found this: [5], which claims they're accredited by "The International Institute for Holistic Arts and Sciences," a private organization. So, technically, the Ph.D. is from an accredited college. Spring12 (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Note this (as well): [6] Spring12 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. While full of admiration for Spring12's monumental efforts, and for his remaining civil under pressure, I think the question at issue here is whether very large amounts of basically trivial coverage achieves "notability" per the GNG. That's a judgement call, but the spirit of WP:N can be seen in subsections like WP:PROF and WP:ENTERTAINER. If you consider what's needed to qualify under one of those sections, I don't think we have notability here. JohnCD (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets notability based on news coverage[7] ; over a sufficient time period not to be counted WP:ONEEVENT. I have no interest in this subject, therefore I can be objective. If there are problems with the article, fix 'em. The bulk of the extensive arguments above seem to be a) discussing the content of the current article (not relevant to AfD), the contributors rather than the subject, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't like it myself - that's irrelevant. I ask all concerned to give simple, reasoned arguments for keep or delete. Some have - saying it's not notable; I've given the reasons I think it is notable, with reference, above. To discuss the content, please use the articles discussion page, or simply fix it.  Chzz  ►  08:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have no interest in "numerology" and therefore I hope that I too can be objective. (Actually this seems to me an interesting twist on the "I'm an expert on this, I know more than you" approach: unprovable and thus ultimately unusable.) You say: Meets notability based on news coverage[5] ; over a sufficient time period not to be counted WP:ONEEVENT. I clicked on the link. There are nine (9) items. One is the ABC GMA appearance. As far as I can see -- I clicked on two; I couldn't be bothered to do all -- the rest add up to very little. These are hardly more than infotainment mentions, and there are very few of them. We already know that she was "swapped" for a teevee show; is there anything new? -- Hoary (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, new stuff. Here's the list of Sirius/XM shows she was interviewed on: April 1, 2008 - "Shade 45" SIRIUS Satellite Radio. April 20, 2008 - "Good Morning America XM Radio" XM Satellite Radio. April 22, 2008 - "Rude Jude/Shade 45 with Jude Angelini" SIRIUS Satellite Radio. April 22, 2008 - "Unleashed with Jim Breuer" SIRIUS Satellite Radio (this one is on her company's site, see here: http://www.shilohspiritualcenter.org/multimedia/breurinterview.wma) April 23, 2008 - "Freewheelin' on Road Dog with Chris Tsakis/Meredith Ochs" SIRIUS Satellite Radio. April 23, 2008 - "OutQ with Larry Flick" SIRIUS Satellite Radio. Plus an archive of all the stories her local paper wrote on her: [8]. Also - back on Dec 14, 2005, she was interviewed for an hour on a local radio show "The Ed Furbee Show on WIOJ Jacksonville Beach Radio". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spring12 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the fact she had to get the law changed [9] to continue spouting mumbo-jumbo to the gullible practising her noble and honourable arts is sufficient notability, the TV appearance is additional gravy. pablo_hablo. 11:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS Ms. Rose, I am a little confused, you accuse the creator of this article of canvassing, by notifying one editor,[10] with what User:AndrewHowse calls a "personal attack":

I noticed that you're doing inappropriate canvassing/begging here and relentless crying here. Such tricks will not save your hopeless piece of junk from getting what it truly deserves. Stop manipulating and idiotizing people. This kind of preschool psychologizing to win them over your lost cause will never work because Wikipedia is full of really smart folks. Chill and let fate take its course. You are just irritating everybody. What a pathetic nuisance you have proven to be! (emphasis my own)

And yet, you have canvassed 6 editors yourself.[11][12][13][14][15][16] Can you explain this blatant discrepency in your canvassing accusations/personal attacks and your own canvassing? Ikip (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really know anything about Wikipedia policy, do you? There is absolutely nothing wrong with canvassing, in fact when you nominate an article for deletion it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles (educate yourself with WP:AFD). And I have never accused Spring12 of canvassing. What I said quite explicitly, if you only knew how to read, was inappropriate canvassing and, to be quite specific, campaigning, which is defined as an attempt to sway the person reading the message, through the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent. and to justify this let me refer you (again, as a link is already provided above) of what he said here "Hey, Chzz, you helped me with the article Sheree Silver a few days ago' (it was a request for feedback). If you get a chance, you're welcome to participate in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination)." To remind an editor that he once helped you with an article that is now being nominated for deletion is tantamount to saying "Hey, some people want to demolish what we worked for." Now go through my invites and try to find anything that comes even close to swaying an editors decision. You call yourself Ikip (I keep), which implies that you're here to vote keep to every article in an AfD indescriminately, and your edit history proves this. That is why your position should be ignored in every AfD. You're a nonsense person in Wikipedia, and you're one of the reasons why so much garbage don't get thrown out. You are ignorant, impertinent and absolutely useless. – Shannon Rose (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to remove your own comments and personal attacks : You are ignorant, impertinent and absolutely useless. but you are not allowed to delete my edits. Please refrain from such behavior or you maybe blocked for another 55 hours. Ikip (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep owing to the well referenced article and the terribly bad behavior of the nominator around this AfD. Ikip (talk)

  Comment The behaviour of the nominator is irrelevant to the quality of the article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a bad argument to use, IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR is a terrible one. pablo_hablo. 11:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Now available as WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR; G'day, Jack Merridew 16:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You may have missed the canvassing of this nominator and the personal attacks on this AfD: You are ignorant, impertinent and absolutely useless. Since this now banned editor removed my comments and her comments above (now restored). If you didn't realize this before, please disregard the following comments, and I sincerely apologize before hand. I will refactor out these comments if this was the case.

  IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR is a new shortcut, invented on this very page. There is no mention of nominators in WP:NPA. If there is no policy, consensus, or guidelines to support an opinion, an editor can invent one on the fly?

  Does the comment: "You are ignorant, impertinent and absolutely useless." posted here qualify as WP:NPA and bad behavior?[17]Also Two other editors and two administrators[18] [19] who blocked the nominator and protected her page seemed to think this editors behavior is not acceptable. If this comment by the nominator is bad behavior, then the WP:NPA accusations against me have absolutely no merit. I am troubled by the support of an editor who has heavily canvassed in this AfD, personally attacked me, removed my comments on this AfD, and been banned for personal attacks. Is canvassing editors and personal attacks are aceptable in an AfD? If Shannon's comments are a NPA violation, I would suggest directing this condemnation of me at the nominator, otherwise a neutral party may see the use of policy here as selective. Ikip (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Read what you posted above, then read my comment. Attacking a poster, not a post is of course a personal attack. and no, please don't "factor out" your comments, it only makes a thread harder to follow. pablo_hablo. 23:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, please don't refactor comments too much; it's disruptive. Shannon would appear to be blocked for whatever is left of 55 hours; banned is a wholely different subject. Do not overstate things.

  You gave the behaviour of the nominator as a reason to keep; this has nothing to do with the article and so it amounts to an attack on the nominator; it could equally be argued that the shortcut target could be WP:BATTLEGROUND, which I commented about to you recently.

  G'day, Jack Merridew

• Keep There are plenty of legitimate news sources listing this person, therefore the requirements for notability are met. How anyone feels about the person, or the quality of the article, is not relevant. Dream Focus 10:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Non notable person from some reality show. Coverage in RS is thin, and frankly a bit of tv news coverage is not that impressive. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable person. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as people say above, there is enough coverage in RS's to satisfy WP:N and over a long enough timespan not to fail WP:ONEVENT. RenegadeMonster (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's bad enough at the best of times to keep WP from becoming a directory of cranks, loons and non-notables. The deletion of this article will go some way to restoring the balance! Pretty much anybody can come up with "theories" and these days pretty much anyone can take part in reality TV $DEITY save us from having a WP article on every one who does! --WebHamster17:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting or keeping this article should have not effect on "balance." Some believe the info meets WP:N, others don't. Arguing "pretty much anyone can take part in reality TV... save us from having a WP article on every one who does" is not a Wikipedia:DEL#Reasons_for_deletion (not to mention that it's not the only thing she's notable for, see above). Spring12 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My my! Deleting a non-notable crank's article should be done because they're a non-notable crank. The effect of helping balance is just a side benefit. Personally I think the same should be done to all wiki-lawyers but I can't see that getting past the first hurdle... the wiki-lawyers. My tip of the day to you is to learn to differentiate between reasons and opinion. Your above comment clearly shows that you got a little confused. I blame myself for not emboldening the words non-notable and italicising opinion and comment to delineate the two. Sorry, my bad. --WebHamster17:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thank you for your... honesty, but again, Wife Swap isn't the only reason for Silver's notability under WP:N. Spring12 (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errrr... I didn't say it was. I merely pointed out a couple of reasons why she didn't warrant a toe-tag categorising her as notable. I didn't realise a fully annotated list of ALL the reasons was required. Well there's me one step further away from getting my own article. I was even going to expand on a couple of ground-breaking theories I'd had whilst in bellybutton-perusing mode this afternoon in the vain hope that I could get them published in Old Moore's Almanac thereby attaining that elusive "notability" lapel badge that I could wear with pride at a local Wikipedia Munch. Ah well I'll just have to go back to my job silver-plating u-bends for David Furnish and his balding mate. --WebHamster18:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article clearly meets the general criteria for WP:NOTABILITY as the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Esasus (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: User:Shannon Rose has been temp blocked but has posted a relevant message on her talk page: User talk:Shannon Rose#Reply to Hoary. – ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Only notable for being in Wife Swap. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shannon Rose has contacted me by email and asks that I point out the reply to Hoary on her talk page that has since been reverted. ThemFromSpace 20:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored out, Themfromspace you are welcome to remove your comments too relating too this, and remove this statment too. thank you for being a referee and diplomat in this situation) Ikip (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't know that. I'll strike out the comment. ThemFromSpace 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. The Wife Swap material doesn't make a huge impact on my conclusion--it could as easily go into an article about the program--but it's certainly entertaining, and legitimate, to include it in an article about her that survives on other grounds. I think she just makes it over the threshhold as a "notable" expert on the pseudoscience of numerology, based mostly on the GMA appearance plus the multiple appearances on national (Sirius) radio. I wish I could be more confident about her current status in this regard, though, and the article doesn't currently make as explicit a case for her notability in this regard as it might. I won't be offended if the consensus ends up going the other way. By the way, Hoary's explanation above, "WP:BOLLOCKS requires that we avoid writing bollocks, not that we avoid writing up would-be propagators of bollocks" is now on my list of best pithy sayings I've read on Wikipedia.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I've revised the lead and added a couple of sentences. Is it any clearer, now, on the things you mentioned? Or should the interviews be explicitly stated? Spring12 (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She may be a crackpot, but she's a notable crackpot. Oy what a country! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable crack pot, non-notable reality TV-show appearance. Insufficient reliable and independent sources to establish notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable/non-reliable sources. Really, these are meant to keep such silliness outtahere. There are hundreds of such characters drifting about Bali; read all about'em. G'day, Jack Merridew 04:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow: "Brian decided to give himself a Ph.D. in Optimal Living with a Specialization in Greatness and Bliss." Complete with 18th Century Capitalization, even. Like, far out, man. But, um, back to Ms Silver.... Hoary (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope I didn't just establish notability for that lot ;) nb: there are more — need a Soul Retrieval? — G'day, Jack Merridew 09:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I ran a "find" on the bali pages for "tv" or "television" and nothing came up. If Silver was only notable for her work/Ph.D., it would be a different story, but reality television/Sirius Satellite Radio/GMA are how some become sufficiently notable. Opinions on the metaphysics field itself aside, Silver meets WP:N. Spring12 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.