696:, "a coatrack article is a Knowledge article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects." I assume the "tangential subject" is Satanic Ritual Abuse(SRA)? If not, please let me know what you feel it is and I will address that as well. Study into Snow's life shows that SRA is anything but tangential but a integral part of who she is and her mission. She is unapologetic about it. If Snow herself read the article, I feel confident she would agree, based on her publications, participation in various prosecutions and testimonies of her patients. She might disagree with the characterization of SRA being a moral panic, but that is the scientific consensus that should be reflected in Knowledge. To really get a deep background, I recommend
733:- I have made several changes to the article to address the concerns expressed here. I have added several non-news references including books, a journal article and documentary. I have a couple more sources that I will add when they show up to my house from Amazon. I have added material that provides some additional context, including a review of her academic work done with secondary sources. I have added Snow's own responses to some of the more controversial parts of her life, so this doesn't come across as an "attack" article. Please let me know if there are any other particular aspects that need to be changed and I will change them.
314:, A topic is notable if the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Barbara Snow's activities have received significant coverage for going on four decades now from various news outlets, journals, documentaries, blogs, podcasts, etc. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Keep in mind that this article is less than 24 hours old, but already there are a number of reliable sources where she is the main topic, or more than a trivial mention.
510:"News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". The Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News are well-established news outlets. The non-news source you mentioned was the Mormon History Association, not CESNUR. CESNUR reprinted it online which I linked to. I have removed the link to CESNUR and added an additional source for that particular sentence, which also happens to be a non-news source.
418:
First of all - no one is going to censor your article and of course it is not nominated because of being polarizing (which I do not see at all). The sources you cited in your table do not exist in the article, perhaps you are confusing with some other article?! Simply the subject does lack notability
264:
She is a very finge chracter. The article does not give broad enough contents. It also engages in coat racking and chracter assasination against a person that there is zero evidence they ever in any way intervened in the matter. There is no evidence that the 1985 accusations outcome was in any way
842:
I'm going to go with keep here, too. Subject seems notable, and while the article does need a bit of cleaning up, it is far from needing to be deleted. Also, the worry about
Introvigne, while understandable, seems somewhat inappropriate here (his book, after all, was published by Brill—which is a
401:
384:: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page". As far as content, that's why words such as "alleged" and "accused of" are used. If there is a more NPOV way to present it, it should be changed. This is not germane to the deletion discussion however.
265:
influenced by anyone acting on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These false abbuse accusations were a nationwide phenomenon, they were not limited to Utah, this needs much better context than the article on this very minor person could ever provide.
613:
the standing consensus." (emphasis added) Consensus was NOT reached in the link you posted at all. It appealed to a prior consensus about CESNUR, not
Introvigne. I'm not sure you can block any one person as a reliable source on Knowledge. No individual person in on the
824:
as notable, with the improvements made since the nomination. Epachamo has done good work. If kept, there should one or two sentences in the lead describing Snow's downgraded professional qualifications. A thin line to walk in a BLP but it can be done factually.
392:
The article never says the accusations were true. The article never said it wasn't a nationwide phenomenon. It never said it wasn't limited to Utah. This article isn't about SRA. Again, the solution should be to add context, not delete the article. Per
399:
I completely agree that there needs to be more context. There should be an entire article on SRA moral panic and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to provide that context. In fact there was one, but it mysteriously disappeared even though
583:
There is no difference between
Massimo Introvigne and CENSUR. And that discussion (as you can tell by simply looking at the title) was about both, and was closed as "generally unreliable". There was nothing about only CENSUR being unreliable.
565:, that did not include Introvigne. There was no consensus reached about Introvigne himself. Regardless, even if the source were removed completely, the additional source added has the same information supporting that particular sentence.
454:, and the sources are all listed in the References section. I'm glad it doesn't read as polarizing to you. I'm legitimately confused and wondering if we really are talking about the same article. If you look at the very first edit
872:. The content of the article is worth discussing on the article's talk page but I cannot see how the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. That's what is being discussed here, not the treatment of the subject in the article.
215:
712:(a lot of these references are not wikipedia appropriate, but provide a a quick if sometimes biased view of Snow that should help provide rapid context to make a judgement on whether the emphasis on SRA is coatracking).
350:
Not according to the sources. She was and still is extremely influential in the SRA movement in Utah, and the broader movement in general. She is notable enough to even receive mentions in several other articles.
371:
Are you referring to
Barbara Snow? Who is the coatracked/character assasinated person? This seems more a conversation worthy of the talk page, to ensure information is accurate and presented in a NPOV way.
609:
There was also nothing about consensus being reached on the page you linked to. From the link you posted, it says: "Generally unreliable, closing due to sockpuppetry and lack of credible cause to
692:
Especially considering this is a living person, it is a completely valid to be concerned about coatracking. On top of that, she is a controversial person within a controversial subculture. From
389:"These false abbuse accusations were a nationwide phenomenon, they were not limited to Utah, this needs much better context than the article on this very minor person could ever provide."
363:: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page". This article is less than 24 hours old. The solution should not be to delete it, but to add context.
209:
419:
and you have to show notability directly at the time of publishing...not somewhat later. If you want to improve/work on the article you can ask for moving it back to your sandbox.
342:"News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". Please reconsider and clarify which source is not reliable.
561:
Your link was closed based on "standing consensus" of an earlier discussion about CESNUR, not about
Massimo Introvigne himself. See earlier consensus that was referred to:
562:
485:
458:, all of these sources were present in the article at the time of publishing. They were not added later. Maybe this is a different article than you were thinking of?
168:
377:"There is no evidence that the 1985 accusations outcome was in any way influenced by anyone acting on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
630:, as you were the one that closed the discussion, can you comment? Did you intend to mark Massimo Introvigne as not a reliable source in addition to CESNUR?
751:
141:
136:
771:
145:
115:
100:
622:
were able to write a scientific paper, get it peer reviewed and published in the most prestigious scientific journal, then I would argue that it is ok.
528:
I didn't say that it was published by CESNUR, but that it was written by
Massimo Introvigne, whose unreliability was confirmed in the link I provided.
368:"It also engages in coat racking and chracter assasination against a person that there is zero evidence they ever in any way intervened in the matter."
175:
128:
484:, who is certainly not a reliable source despite the hagiography of an article that we have about him. Consensus that he is unreliable was confirmed
843:
very reputable academic publisher—and was published as a volume of an edited series; I wouldn't be surprised if the book was peer-reviewed, too).--
230:
66:
197:
480:
I haven't checked out the news sources, because I dislike basing our articles on news, but the one non-news source in the article is by
455:
95:
88:
17:
697:
191:
132:
705:
187:
881:
856:
834:
814:
783:
763:
742:
721:
676:
639:
593:
574:
537:
519:
497:
467:
428:
424:
274:
255:
251:
70:
109:
105:
338:. All of these sources are reliable. They are all secondary sources. None of them are considered "tabloids". Per
864:. Achieving notability is independent of what kind of person the subject is. The subject appears to meet, at least,
237:
793:
331:
898:
270:
40:
284:. This article is clearly controversial and polarizing, neither of which are valid reasons to delete or censor.
451:
124:
76:
62:
563:
Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#CESNUR_as_a_source_for_articles_on_New_religious_movements
779:
759:
445:
420:
247:
672:
589:
533:
493:
404:. Clearly this is embarrassing and polarizing. But neither of these reasons are reasons for censorship.
203:
894:
323:
36:
615:
322:
I am truly mystified as to what the "one" source is referred to. The sources mentioned here include
266:
850:
223:
58:
701:
775:
755:
738:
717:
660:
659:— I haven’t commenced source analysis but from briefly reading the body i can definitely see the
635:
570:
515:
481:
463:
830:
687:
668:
604:
585:
556:
529:
489:
339:
84:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
893:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
709:
246:
Lacks WP:GNG, the refs given are of one source and this one cannot be called a reliable one
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
877:
865:
327:
845:
805:
693:
54:
869:
734:
713:
664:
631:
566:
511:
459:
394:
381:
360:
311:
304:
826:
507:
162:
873:
397:: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page"
619:
506:
There is no
Knowledge policy against basing an article on News Sources. Per
319:"refs given are of one source and this one cannot be called a reliable one"
625:
706:
Gizmodo podcast about Teal Swan that discusses Snow and her techniques
335:
889:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
796:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
158:
154:
150:
222:
802:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
356:"The article does not give broad enough context."
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
901:). No further edits should be made to this page.
770:Note: This discussion has been included in the
750:Note: This discussion has been included in the
698:blog about Barbara Snow from a PHD Psychologist
236:
8:
116:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
769:
752:list of Women-related deletion discussions
749:
772:list of Utah-related deletion discussions
402:the result of the discussion was to keep
291:
702:Discussion of Snow and her techniques
7:
24:
450:The article I'm referring to is
347:"She is a very fringe character"
101:Introduction to deletion process
456:Special:PermanentLink/963142747
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
710:further information about Snow
1:
91:(AfD)? Read these primers!
918:
332:Mormon History Association
857:20:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
835:22:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
815:09:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
784:10:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
764:10:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
743:03:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
722:03:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
677:20:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
640:14:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
594:20:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
575:20:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
538:17:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
520:16:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
498:12:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
468:03:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
429:22:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
275:17:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
256:15:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
891:Please do not modify it.
882:22:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
452:Barbara Snow (therapist)
125:Barbara Snow (therapist)
77:Barbara Snow (therapist)
71:03:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
667:perharps address that.
334:, and CBS affiliated
324:The Salt Lake Tribune
295:Argument For Deletion
89:Articles for deletion
55:(non-admin closure)
482:Massimo Introvigne
446:CommanderWaterford
421:CommanderWaterford
248:CommanderWaterford
817:
813:
786:
766:
618:list anyway. If
409:
408:
267:John Pack Lambert
106:Guide to deletion
96:How to contribute
57:
909:
855:
853:
848:
812:
810:
803:
801:
799:
797:
691:
629:
608:
560:
449:
328:The Deseret News
292:
241:
240:
226:
178:
166:
148:
86:
53:
34:
917:
916:
912:
911:
910:
908:
907:
906:
905:
899:deletion review
851:
846:
844:
818:
806:
804:
792:
790:
685:
623:
602:
554:
443:
183:
174:
139:
123:
120:
83:
80:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
915:
913:
904:
903:
885:
884:
859:
837:
800:
789:
788:
787:
767:
746:
745:
727:
726:
725:
724:
680:
679:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
597:
596:
578:
577:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
523:
522:
501:
500:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
434:
433:
432:
431:
413:
412:
411:
410:
407:
406:
390:
386:
385:
378:
374:
373:
369:
365:
364:
357:
353:
352:
348:
344:
343:
320:
316:
315:
308:
300:
299:
296:
286:
285:
278:
277:
244:
243:
180:
119:
118:
113:
103:
98:
81:
79:
74:
59:RandomCanadian
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
914:
902:
900:
896:
892:
887:
886:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
860:
858:
854:
849:
841:
838:
836:
832:
828:
823:
820:
819:
816:
811:
809:
798:
795:
785:
781:
777:
776:Coolabahapple
773:
768:
765:
761:
757:
756:Coolabahapple
753:
748:
747:
744:
740:
736:
732:
729:
728:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
689:
684:
683:
682:
681:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
654:
641:
637:
633:
627:
621:
617:
616:WP:RSPSOURCES
612:
606:
601:
600:
599:
598:
595:
591:
587:
582:
581:
580:
579:
576:
572:
568:
564:
558:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
539:
535:
531:
527:
526:
525:
524:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:
503:
502:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
478:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
447:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
430:
426:
422:
417:
416:
415:
414:
405:
403:
396:
391:
388:
387:
383:
379:
376:
375:
370:
367:
366:
362:
358:
355:
354:
349:
346:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
318:
317:
313:
309:
306:
302:
301:
297:
294:
293:
290:
289:
288:
287:
283:
280:
279:
276:
272:
268:
263:
260:
259:
258:
257:
253:
249:
239:
235:
232:
229:
225:
221:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
189:
186:
185:Find sources:
181:
177:
173:
170:
164:
160:
156:
152:
147:
143:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
121:
117:
114:
111:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
93:
92:
90:
85:
78:
75:
73:
72:
68:
64:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
890:
888:
861:
839:
821:
807:
791:
730:
688:Celestina007
669:Celestina007
656:
610:
605:Phil Bridger
586:Phil Bridger
557:Phil Bridger
530:Phil Bridger
490:Phil Bridger
486:6 months ago
398:
281:
261:
245:
233:
227:
219:
212:
206:
200:
194:
184:
171:
82:
49:
47:
31:
28:
282:Strong Keep
210:free images
808:Sandstein
663:concerns.
620:Alex Jones
340:WP:NEWSORG
895:talk page
866:WP:ANYBIO
847:Gen. Quon
661:coat rack
298:Response
37:talk page
897:or in a
794:Relisted
735:Epachamo
714:Epachamo
665:Epachamo
632:Epachamo
567:Epachamo
512:Epachamo
460:Epachamo
169:View log
110:glossary
67:contribs
39:or in a
827:Lockley
731:Comment
694:WP:COAT
657:Comment
611:REVISIT
303:"Lacks
216:WP refs
204:scholar
142:protect
137:history
87:New to
874:Ifnord
870:WP:GNG
852:(Talk)
395:WP:ATD
382:WP:ATD
361:WP:ATD
312:WP:GNG
305:WP:GNG
262:Delete
188:Google
146:delete
508:WP:RS
231:JSTOR
192:books
176:Stats
163:views
155:watch
151:links
16:<
878:talk
868:and
862:Keep
840:Keep
831:talk
822:Keep
780:talk
760:talk
739:talk
718:talk
673:talk
636:talk
590:talk
571:talk
534:talk
516:talk
494:talk
464:talk
425:talk
380:Per
359:Per
336:KUTV
310:Per
271:talk
252:talk
224:FENS
198:news
159:logs
133:talk
129:edit
63:talk
50:keep
700:,
626:JzG
238:TWL
167:– (
69:)
880:)
833:)
825:--
782:)
774:.
762:)
754:.
741:)
720:)
704:,
675:)
638:)
592:)
573:)
536:)
518:)
496:)
488:.
466:)
427:)
330:,
326:,
273:)
254:)
218:)
161:|
157:|
153:|
149:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
65:/
52:.
876:(
829:(
778:(
758:(
737:(
716:(
708:,
690::
686:@
671:(
634:(
628::
624:@
607::
603:@
588:(
569:(
559::
555:@
532:(
514:(
492:(
462:(
448::
444:@
423:(
307:"
269:(
250:(
242:)
234:·
228:·
220:·
213:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
190:(
182:(
179:)
172:·
165:)
127:(
112:)
108:(
61:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.