Talk:Michelle Stith/Archive 1

Arbitrary section header

The stuff about her Scientology course completions and her son's film seemed not very noteworthy and faintly stalkerish to me, so I cut them. BTfromLA 05:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - she's a scientology leader, so a link to her completitions is appropriate, plus a mention that she has reached the highest level OT8. And mentioning that her son is a successful scientologist is not an invasion of privacy IMO. --Tilman 07:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine--I didn't cut the link to her completions, but it seemed a bit much to list them in the article. Mentioning that she's OT 8 does seem relevant. BTfromLA 16:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

She is not a Scientology leader, the information is outdated and incorrect. The tone of this piece is tabloid and of no value or importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unmooredprod (talk • contribs) 13:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If she's no longer a leader, that needs a reference. All of these articles lag until there's a more recent ref: Mark Rathbun, whereabouts unknown, living unknown; Heber Jentzsch in not-quite-RPF for a while now; Mike Rinder, blown... Until there's a newer reference, updating any of these articles would be unsourced original research. Who is the current president of the Church of Scientology of Los Angeles? I can check for news articles mentioning that person for mention of the change. AndroidCat (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Has she been sent to the RPF? --213.73.115.136 (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Really notable?

Is the president of just an org really notable? The LA org is a large one, but it's overshadowed by all the Advanced orgs, PAC Base, etc, just around the corner. Also, aren't org presidents subordinate to the Executive Director of the board of trustees for the org corporation? (I'm not sure of that.) There was some confusion of "President of Scientology" (LA) vs CSI and she would be notable if she had replaced Heber Jentzch, but she hasn't. This is an orphan stub article. Special:Whatlinkshere/Michelle_Stith This might be a simple {{prod}} if no one objects. AndroidCat 02:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Take to AFD if need be instead, but not worthy of prod at this time. It is likely the article will be expanded upon with material from reputable secondary sourced citations. Smee 05:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

User:Fahrenheit451 created this article last year [1], apparently because he heard a rumor that Stith had replaced Heber Jentsch as official spokesperson for the CoS, but that appears to have been only a rumor. I don't think she's notable and would support deletion of the article. wikipediatrix 02:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I will put a notability tag on the article. Steve Dufour 12:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

She appeared on the radio, claiming to be "president of scientology". So yes, many of us thought that she had replaced Heber Jentzsch. --Tilman 18:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

She is definitely notable.--Fahrenheit451 19:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? Why? AndroidCat 21:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Info in husband and son

I took out the sentence on them. They are not notable and she is not notable for being a wife and mother, is she? Steve Dufour 02:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We had this discussion before elsewhere. She is notable, therefore a minimum information on her family is useful. --Tilman 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a discussion was had elsewhere doesn't permanently kill all future discussions. Why do you think she is notable? wikipediatrix 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

She appeared on the radio, claiming to be "president of scientology". She is also one of the first New OT8. [2] --Tilman

And that's it? These are the two things that make her notable, and yet the article doesn't actually mention either? wikipediatrix 05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think most people would find someone being an OT8 very notable. :-) Steve Dufour 15:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If the purpose of this article is to discuss the religion of Scientology then it should be about the religion, not about a member of the church who someone has placed in a position that is not of interest and that discusses the birth of her children.

Research work

I see that you have done a lot of work on this article. To me, however, it seems like original research. You have found some instances where she has acted as a spokesperson for the church and made the conclusion that that is what she is notable for. Someone could put an original research tag on the article. I'm not going to do that myself since the article doesn't seem to be doing anyone any harm. Steve Dufour 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

An innovative theory: proving notability with media sources is original research. --Tilman 18:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources said anything about her as an individual, they just quoted her as a spokesperson. Steve Dufour 20:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• All of the sources are valid and easily satisfy WP:RS. Smee 23:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

Just because Stith made all these comments and we have sources for these comments, still doesn't tell us why she's notable enough for us to have an article that regurgitates these comments in the first place. Desperately cobbling together every media source with Stith's name even remotely mentioned in passing doesn't make this a valid article. These are not articles about Stith and you know it. I'd be fascinated to know what Scientology-related people and subjects you don't think are notable enough to make an article out of. wikipediatrix 23:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• That is a good question, though this is probably not the right space to discuss it. Smee 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

Yep. So why, then, did you respond to that aspect of my post instead of answering the relevant parts? wikipediatrix 02:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is already very well sourced to reputable secondary sources. If you wish to continue a discussion focused on notability, perhaps this would be better for AFD. Smee 02:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

As you've had it explained to you many times before, even an article that is "well sourced to reputable secondary sources" can still be non-notable and irrelevant. wikipediatrix 02:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if that is how you feel, perhaps that would be a matter for AFD. Smee 02:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

You're talking in circles. When I press you to explain why you think Stith is notable, you give your standard "but it's sourced" excuse, and when I remind you that doesn't apply here, you brush it off with this ultimatum that seems to be saying "I don't care if I'm wrong or not, I'd rather you try to AFD it than to have an actual discussion".

Fortunately for you, it's precisely because I think the article is so non-notable that I don't think it's worth bothering to take to AFD. If Stith herself objects to this article (and I think she has every right to), then I'm certain she will make her objections manifest by one means or another, at one time or another, in the future. Maybe even the near future. wikipediatrix 03:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well then. I am glad that you do not think the article is worth bothering to take to AFD. Let us then move to other discussion issues aside from notability. Smee 03:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

We haven't discussed anything here, Smee. As I said already, you're not discussing - you're talking in circles, evading, making excuses, making ultimatums, etc. You obviously cannot provide any valid explanation of why you think Stith is notable (aside from the "it's sourced!" excuse), or you would have done so already and wouldn't keep dodging the question. wikipediatrix 03:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• That is partially correct. I do not wish to discuss this any longer, for you are not being that polite. And my suggestion of AFD is NOT an "ultimatum", it is a more appropriate forum for that type of discussion. Smee 03:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

There you go again. It's also impolite to not discuss your edits, especially after you've been asked repeatedly to justify them and you are refusing. In the absence of any explanation for your edit, this "take it to AFD if you don't like it" attitude is quite offensive, unresponsive, combative, counter-productive to Wikipedia, and a few more adjectives. wikipediatrix 03:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, then we have a miscommunication here. I feel you are being impolite on the talk page, and I also feel that an AFD is the proper forum for a notability discussion. You feel that my suggestion of an AFD discussion for notability is some sort of "ultimatum". That is not my intention, but as we are at an impasse and you are clearly misinterpreting my words, I think it best to give this thread a rest. My apologies for your misinterpretation of the intention behind my responses. Yours, Smee 03:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

You have time to fire back these condescending and insulting snappy comebacks, yet you don't have time to answer the question that three editors (including AndroidCat) have asked about your edits and you still won't answer. You have insisted Stith is notable but you are unable to say why. wikipediatrix 03:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, though I respect your opinion, in my opinion this is not the appropriate place for that discussion. And as we are now going in circles, and you are utilzing a type of language that is a tack that is not the most polite at the moment. I feel it best at this point in time to end this thread, and take a break from this particular discussion. Smee 03:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Yep. Like I said, you have insisted Stith is notable but you are unable to say why. wikipediatrix 04:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that is how you feel, I maintain it is better to say why in another forum, and avoid further responses here, in order to get back to a more polite discussion. Smee 04:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

I am saving my AFD's for articles that could be harmful to someone. If you would like to nominate this one, wikipediatrix, you have my vote. Steve Dufour 04:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. I am kinda out-of-touch so I did not notice this discussion. Yes, we do not need this article as she is non-notable. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Stith. --Justanother 13:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If this comment is true why is this page up? This inflammatory article is not newsworthy or of interest or importance. It bears an obvious slant and contains information that is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unmooredprod (talk • contribs) 13:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I see this article has been nominated twice for deletion. Considering how minor a figure this person is in the world of Scientology, not even being a member of the Sea Org and serving in a purely public relations capacity at the local level, this is probably as good as the article is going to get. That said, the tone of the article should be more encyclopedic and divided into appropriate sections, and fleshed out further if possible. However, I'd be surprised if anyone can really add more to this article and I'd recommend reconsidering inclusion at some point when it becomes obvious to those who voted to keep it that this person is not notable enough for an inclusion in an encyclopedia. We're talking about a local Church executive who is effectively a press secretary or spokesperson. But, if it's to remain here and it likely will, it's going to need some serious work because as it stands, this is at the level of a press release bio. Laval (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Michelle Stith/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*6 citations, no images. Smee 10:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 10:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)