Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Phelps-Roper

:{{la|Shirley Phelps-Roper}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Phelps-Roper}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Shirley Phelps-Roper}})

Fails WP:Notable. None of the secondary sources cited gave any substantial information on her. She was just mentioned in passing along with her father, the highly notable (and noted) Fred Phelps. (My mistake. One source has some material, and seems to have interviewed her. However it is not neutral, more like gonzo journalism--not that that's always bad. But still there is not substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources as required by WP:N.) Wolfview (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Hundreds of thousands of Google hits. Not sourced well-enough now? Fix it. Grsz¹¹ 15:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

::Actually WP:BLP advises us to delete rather than fix. Wolfview (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

:::No BLP issues in current form. She's the second-highest figure surrounding WBC, has appeared on national and international news a number of times. Grsz¹¹ 15:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

::::How many members in the entire group? Wolfview (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::This info was added to the article on it, around 71 members. Do we really need articles on the two top leaders of a group this size? Wolfview (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::What I was trying to suggest here is to just mention her in the article on the organization as the number 2 leader and redirect this article there, no information would be removed from Wikipedia. Say the Republican or Democratic Party had 71 million members. Would we have articles on the top 2 million leaders? Wolfview (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::::No we wouldn't have articles on that many people of an organization unless they can all be shown to be notable. There is though, a good possibility that the top 2 people in most notable organizations are notable themselves. It all comes down to what coverage that #2 person has. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I still think that if a group has 2 leaders and 69 other members the second leader is not such an important figure, especially if she (or he) is just following the direction of the number 1 leader. The information in this article could be expressed in one sentence in the main article on the church itself. Something like "Since... Phleps's daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper has been the secondary leader of the group and has taken on the role of spokesperson." Wolfview (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - No BLP issue that I can see. The question here is whether this is a high-enough ranking official in a notable organization headed by her notable father, or not. My initial impression was that this was a "Delete" situation, under the theory that notability is not heritable and if this person had some other surname other than "Phelps" this article would never have been created in the first place. On the other hand, this is one of the higher profile hate groups in America, in my opinion, and if this is the heir to the throne, one could make the case that the biography should stand. It's a pretty tough call either way. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

:: Additional Comment - The bit about her first child having been born out of wedlock, while sourced, is gratuitous and should go. The source in which this information appears has Shirley Phelps-Roper as the subject of the article, which lends weight for the "Keep" perspective, I note. It does seem that this is a top figure in the extremely vocal "God Hates Fags" movement... Carrite (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

:::(Just a note that I opened a discussion related to this line at the BLP noticeboard, linked [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Shirley_Phelps-Roper here]). — e. ripley\^talk 17:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - No recommendation at this time. Wolfview is incorrect above, WP:BLP does not advise us to delete rather that fix articles. It actually says just the opposite, articles not complying with the BLP policy should be rectified and improved if possible. It goes on to say that page deletion is a last resort. ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

:I was thinking of these two statements from WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." and "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, and which may disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to." This article seems to be poorly sourced to me. The only secondary source giving much coverage is negative in tone. There are a couple of news stories from major sources, but they only mention her and her father together, or are about their group and don't mention her at all. Then there are a couple of primary sources, like the group's own website.Wolfview (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

::Neither of those quotes apply here. About contentious material, it can be, and has been, removed from the article without outright deletion. And the article is not an attack article filled with only negative information. Given how much negative press is out there about her, it's actually pretty positive in tone. Grsz¹¹ 19:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Okay, the gratuitous shit is cleaned up now. This is pretty clearly a notable individual in Wikipedia terms as a leading activist who is the subject of reliable independent media coverage. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Although Fred is the founder, Shirley is the functional leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, and their spokesperson. She's more the public face of Westboro than Fred is, and in my opinion, Wikipedia needs an article about her. p.s. she is a terrible, awful person. not relevant to the discussion, but i mention it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

:: I believe this is accurate. For evidence of her functional leadership, here's a breaking news story relating to Shirley Phelps-Roper calling out the Florida Quran-burner for insufficent zeal: [http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2010/09/shirley_phelps-roper_calls_out_florida_preacher_for_plans_to_burn_quran_cause_she_did_it_first.php "Shirley Phelps-Roper Calls Out Florida Preacher."] Carrite (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

::: Lest someone WP:HAVEACOW about my citing a blog to make a point, here's the same info from the Kansas City Star, a mainstream newspaper: [http://www.kansascity.com/2010/09/08/2209487/attention-might-fan-quran-flames.html "Attention Might Fan Quran Flames."] Carrite (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see a BLP problem here. Seems notable enough and article is well enough sourced and supported. Some work needed still but definitely not a delete situation. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 00:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Presence on the Home Office banned list seems to further bolster claim of notability. Carrite (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - I see enough significant coverage of her to say she meets our notability guidelines. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, amply satisfies WP:NOTE, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, but add more about what she specifically has done rather than what WBC as an institution has done. Roscelese (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2010 (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.