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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Belanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural AfD. Listed per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 10. My own view will be Keep, which I will detail below. SilkTork *^YES! 07:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Keep, appears to satisfy the general notability guideline (please no one suggest we need notability guidelines for psychic vampires). I really don't like the links to imageshack.us being used as references, though. I believe pictures can be references - I've used them as such myself - but they should be pictures published by reliable sources. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• And that album cover needs either a fair use rationale for its use in this particular article or it needs to be removed. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SilkTork *^YES!

• Keep. Has a range of reliable sources, including media sources such as Fox News Channel, The Washington Post, and Bizarre magazine along with books The re-enchantment of the West: alternative spiritualities, sacralization, popular culture, and occulture by Christopher Hugh Partridge ISBN 0567041336, and Magickal Self Defense: A Quantum Approach to Warding by Kerr Cuhulain ISBN 0738712191. The subject is presented in the article as notable because she is a "prominent psychic vampire", and an "active figurehead and speaker for those interested in vampires and vampirism" - these statements come directly from the Washington Post - [1], written by "Monica Hesse Washington Post Staff Writer", and Bizarre Magazine - [2], written by Eleanor Goodman, Chief Sub Editor for Bizarre magazine [3]. The statement that she is a speaker on the campus circuit are supported by university newspapers. She has been published by the two leading publishers in her field - Red Wheel Weiser Conari and Llewellyn Worldwide. She has appeared in various documentaries, films, tv and radio shows, and in mentioned in several books about her field. These statements are also supported by sources, including a clip of Hannity's America in which she appears. The previous objection to the article, that it was written in a promotional manner, has now been addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 07:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not quite right.

    Partridge does not document Belanger at all, only the House Kheperu. The only mention of Belanger at all is as the author in a citation, given in a footnote, for a quotation. Nothing is said about her at all. Partridge does not even support the content in this article against which he is cited as a source. He nowhere says that Belanger founded Kheperu.

    Cuhulain has exactly three sentences on the subject of Belanger. The first mentions her as the author of a recommended book. The second and third state that in that book she included an updated version of the Black Veil. Cuhulain is actually discussing the Black Veil itself in that text.

    Hesse only mentions Belanger to give context for quoting her on the subject of psychic vampires (not Belanger), and says nothing that is actually about her except for the three words ("prominent psychic vampire") that you've quoted.

    Goodman similarly only mentions Belanger in order to quote her on the subject of psychic vampires (again, not Belanger), and again says nothing except that she authored a book and is an "active vampire scene figurehead".

    Belanger is an author who has written on other subjects, and whose writings and views on those subjects are quoted by others. But the above are not themselves evidence that other people have actually written about Belanger herself. Uncle G (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep In the first DrV I wrote "I'm finding a news article mostly about her [4], news articles that quote her in the Washington Post [5] and Chicago Tribune, books by a real (though specialized) publisher, apparently been on Hanity's show [6]. The enc. dramatica article certainly makes an interesting read ED/Michelle_Belanger. Ignoring the ED article for a second, I have to imagine this person is notable. Scary maybe, but notable." Hobit (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article was previously deleted by AfD because it was considered promotional in a clear violation of the NPOV policy and failing the notability guidelines in Wikipedia standards. After its closure by a general consensus, it was again endorsed for deletion at a previous DRV for the exact same reason, in a once again very clear attempt at relaunching the promotional activity for this individual by herself or her agent. That DRV was requested by an user who's single edit was to open that deletion review, using an account with the name of Belanger's vampire cult. That same account Kheperu (talk · contribs) was blocked as a role account. [7] [8]. Now on this new trend of continuous attempts at bringing back this article in consecutive AfD/DRV requests, I want to mention that not all of the issues with NPOV were addressed, and that the articles' language does not fully comply with a scholarly accepted encyclopedic style. Stating that an individual is a psychic vampire is not appropriate in an encyclopedia, since it is subject to personal belief. It would be like stating that someone is an alien from Mars, if that was his belief or the belief of his personal cult. An encyclopedia must present well researched and established facts, not personal opinions or beliefs. This points to a conflict with NPOV on the proposed new version of the article. Adding to that, most of the new sources that were provided do not really comply with the RS policy, which clearly should not be user-uploaded images on imageshack or articles that just refer the subject or interview him, but do not review his work or discuss him in detail. There is not one single in depth reference addressing this individual from a single reliable source. This is not an indicator of notability.

The provided sources and help in rebuilding the new article were made by accounts that clearly point to an SPA behaviour, including an user that has been blocked in the past for disruptive editing precisely because of adding promotional material from Belanger in several articles across Wikipedia and reverting other editor's actions in the removal of such content. [9] This SPA indicator alone undermines the whole efforts to reopen an article already far too entwined in drama.

This author has several books published, from which the vast majority are self-published, and the rest are released by publishing houses that do not really comply with the RS policy for reliable sources. I am sorry to most Wiccans and New Agers alike, but Llewellyn and Weiser are not exactly what falls under the RS category. (Also, as a side note, please keep in mind that there are Wicca books published by University presses, as well as professional publishing houses that do comply with RS. So don't take my example on Wicca as pejorative of the cultus.) On the top of that, none of her works was ever target of peer reviews or even documented under professional scrutiny and debate, except the online opinions found in several websites and people that bought her book. There may be a few references to her name in some more reliable articles, but still they do not present true reviews on her published work. This is a clear indicator on the lack of notability, from someone who does not meet most of the WP:BIO guidelines. Bottom line is that this individual, wether as an author or as a singer, is not worthy of an article in an encyclopedia.

For such a borderline-notable article that has been used as a platform for promotional content and a series of disruptive edits in other articles related with this same individual, I believe the benefits of maintaining such an entry in the system are clearly diminished by the red flags it raises, not to mention that it would conflict directly with the COI policy that Wikipedia editors so strive to enforce.

Everyone, please forgive my extensive entry on this particular DRV, but this is the sort of trend that an online encyclopedia must try to avoid. DianaLeCrois  : 23:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you feel this is a single purpose account, that I am violating the policies surrounding promotion, or that I am engaging in disruptive editing by supplying references to published articles to editors interesting in working on an entry, then please take your accusations to the appropriate administrators. A deletion discussion is a place to discuss the merits or deficiencies of the existing article in question. Not bring up past historic issues of an article which have been dealt with. Nor is it a place to throwing about accusations against other editors that you appear to have, to this editor, a completely unfounded and unreasonable grudge against.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Diana. The issues related to style and formatting of cites are being adressed, though these are not usually reasons for deleting an article - if a cite is incorrectly formatted or a sentence is poorly phrased or a word is spelled wrong, we tend to feel that these are matters that editing will improve in time. It is not expected that an article will land on Wikipedia fully formed. As regards the academic response to the subject's books, that is a side issue, and is not related to the prime reasons given in the article for the subject's nobility which is that she is "a prominent member of the psychic vampire community, and an active figurehead and speaker for those interested in vampires and vampirism." This claim to notability is supported by various cites throughout the article. The mention of the publishers Llewellyn and Weiser is entirely appropriate, as they are the main publishers of the field in which the subject is prominent. In a claim that a person is prominent in a field, it is appropriate that mention is made that the person is published by the main publishers in that field. That the field is in itself a cult is acceptable to Wikipedian notability standards, as we do accept that people may be prominent in a limited field of interest, as long as the cult in itself is notable enough for an article. We have such an article, Vampire lifestyle, which is supported by scholarly works: [10]. The matter of people's past behaviour is for a different forum, and has no bearing on the notability of the subject. This is not a vote, and what matters is the content of what is said, not who says it nor how many people say it. SilkTork *^YES! 09:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I read the first five words, "Michelle Belanger is a psychic vampire...", checked that this isn't even a fiction category, and stopped reading. Delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Michelle Belanger is is a prominent psychic vampire..." is easily edited to "Michelle Belanger is a is a prominent member of the psychic vampire community...".--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional reasons: Only trivial mentions in reliable sources, all the rest are self-published or trivial AND unreliable, i.e. "Authors Katherine Ramsland and Michelle Belanger are interviewed along with several other experts on the modern vampire culture" being the only mention in of her in a review of a straight to dvd "documentary" at "Dvdtown." The review goes on to say "Vampire Secrets" is intermittently interesting, but is pretty much disposable fluff." Those last 4 words sum this article up.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - notability is extremely marginal, but having read through all the sources (in particular [11], [12], [13] and [14]), I think there is just about enough significant coverage here to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There's plenty here for notability and the npov is certainly acceptable. Perhaps if we were ONLY considering this person for an article on books, or only as a singer, she might not quite meet notability compared to others in the same narrow category, but Belanger is an author, entertainer, public speaker and expert on cult or occult subjects, and as such fulfills several categories, the combined material making her a notable person. Others above have already listed the sources so I won't belabor it, except to suggest a print ref for the Bizarre Magazine article. I emailed the publsiher for the mag and am awaiting a reply. I cleaned up a few external links that appeared as links within the article and moved them to the references area. Ebonyskye (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Feature magazine article located I think someone argued not having had any articles written solely on Belanger... Well, I found one. It was posted here [15] and is in Dark Realms issue 24, Oct 2006. I added the ref under music/Blood of Angels, but the magazine article also supports several other statements in the wiki article. Feel free to ref it elsewhere if you think it could be of use. Cheers. Ebonyskye (talk) 02:01, 16 May 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.