Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Caine (2nd nomination)

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. BigDom talk 07:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Caine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Second nomination, the previous nomination was in 2006. It is a very well-written article, and seemingly well-sourced, but all sources seem to be first-party sources. I cannot find any independant sources to confer notability for the subject. She seems like a nice woman, but she at this time doesn't meet the notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree s/b a Delete. The refs are to her books, her web site, or 404. No independent sources presented to suggest notability. Tkotc (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised this went almost five years without being renominated. There very little coverage in independent sources - possibly the only thing is being a guest on The 700 Club. But even that is not notable in itself. St Anselm (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is featured on the cover of the September/October 2010 issue of Outreach Magazine.[1] Other recent coverage describes her appearance at the 2010 Willow Creek Association Leadership Summit in Illinois (The Christian Post[2], Fast Company[3]) and an February 2011 appearance in Tennessee got coverage from at least 2 TV stations[4][5].--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot of self-pomotion going on here. Notability requires independent sources. Outreach is a church-business building tome; I wonder why she would have an article there. The Christian Post is a web-blog. The WBIR TV story is a beat-up that doesn't support the inflammatory headline. Not much else to be found in searches. Of the two cites in the lead sentence of the article; one is her personal web-page and the other is a deadlink to a commercial site selling speakers, books and tapes. Just the sort of resume that the project doesn't need. Bleakcomb (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain in more detail your conclusion that Outreach Magazine is not an independent source? It's not her magazine, and it appears to me that it's a legitimate publication within the evangelical field. Given the coverage in Fast Company (as well as Christian Post) and on the TV stations, I'm left with the strong perception that there has been coverage of her for three different things in three different geographical areas, all within the last six months. To me, this adds up to multiple coverage in reliable sources and ought to pass WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable independent source is where someone else says something non-trivial about the subject and it is published in a reputable outlet. The Outreach article is no more than a series of extensive quotes from the subject with pithy headings added by the source "journalist" - probably sourced from a press release and certainly promotional in style. Considering that the content is almost completely quotes by the subject it is not independent of the subject. A reliable source must have been published in an outlet that has a reputation for fact-checking. Outreach is not a mainstream media outlet. Without a widespread reputation, another means is required to substantiate the status of Outreach as a reliable source.

Again The Christian Post is not a mainstream media outlet and gives all the impressions of being a subject focussed web-blog. Again not a reliable source. The piece on the conference is a promotional press release effort by the organisers. From the article, "The Global Leadership Summit continues Friday with speakers including Daniel Pink, former White House speechwriter; Blake Mycoskie, founder of TOMS Shoes, Inc.; and Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric Company." All we needed was their phone number to call and buy tickets. The rest of the article consists of large slabs of direct quotes from speakers at the conference straight from the press release. These are not reliable, independent sources and the dear subject is not notable.

See WP:NRVE where "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity."

I just looked at the Volunteer TV reference. The subject of the article is Human Trafficking in Eastern Tennessee, not Ms Caine. She is just quoted in passing and is only trivial coverage of her. Bleakcomb (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not many indications that she is indeed notable. I just removed a whole chunk of material that was unambiguously WP:COPYVIO, and suspect there to be more. I think the need for copyediting is consistent with the "import" of text from non-independent sources. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:24, 10 March 2011 (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.