Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Parent (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 keep. Sandstein 10:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Parent

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Rachel Parent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page does not meet the basic guidelines for notability. Parent has no significant coverage in secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the topic. Most references provided are to promotional blogs & websites and to her own website. The coverage of Parent is not in-depth, and she is mostly known for her appearance on the The Lang and O’Leary Exchange in 2013, which makes her very close to being known for one event. Some citations point to dead or updated links that are have no relevance to the material being cited. Most sources quoted in the previous AfD refer to the Lang Exchange interview and provide no significant or in-depth coverage of Parent. One of the articles is about Kevin Folta, with some reference to Parent. The article has not been improved since the previous AfD 8==8 Boneso (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Smidoid, I only found this in one independently published article. If you have more independently published sources (i.e., not from the pro GM lobby (because apparently that's a thing?)) then feel free to link to them. GMGtalk 19:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GreenMeansGo Apparently we are a thing … we're all shills for Monsanto or Bayer or Big Ag or something. I don't think there's any question who her father is and that should be enough to question the entire pitch that she just happened on GMO doing a school project and it grew from there. I can do some more digging but you have to question why the lede for the page is (or was) a carbon copy of her own webpage. Like many in my "cabal" of science respecting, well-read people with, you know expertise... I'm on a block list and I was blocked by her Twitter feed before I'd even heard of her! Of course I can still read it but that's not the point. This, again, throws into question her real motives since I'm well known under a pseudonym (naturally) for going toe-to-toe with anti-science types and throwing facts at them. I see this as a possible cognitive bias so I won't edit these pages but try to help less connected people who do. I believe the GLP article has a number of cross references to make its point but I'll go check.Smidoid (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is Smidoid, on Wikipedia we can't "build a case" so-to-speak. We have to wait for reliable independent sources to take this type of primary material and do it for us, and then we cite the work they do professionally. GMGtalk 20:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GreenMeansGo Sure. I see you're a Brit, BTW, hope the weather isn't too rough right now... The GLP piece I've now linked on the talk page following a suggestion from another user was written by Dr. David Warmflash - a hugely respected author in his own right. I goes into detail about many of these issues (not just why she's utterly wrong about them). Many have compared her to Vani Hari (Food Babe), but her parent's business benefits even more directly from any attack she can make on good science. As for the lede… Might I suggest someone compares it to Rachel's website? This story (about a school project) while widely repeated, is actually unsourced and can't easily be checked. However, even if remotely true, at 11 years of age, its inconceivable that she wouldn't have been directly tutored by her parents. It makes for a terrific narrative - as does the one about her standing up to the Monsanto CEO (I'm working from memory there). But again, this was likely a coached response and her direct, familial connection to a multi-million dollar natural foods industry throws anything she says into question. (I would also question the fact-checkers at the networks who have put her up front and centre for missing this very point.) Smidoid (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Minor addition) Here's Wayne Parent's profile on Bloomberg for reference. https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=225036978&privcapId=49075983 Smidoid (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No Smidoid, not a Brit; a nobody from the hills of Appalachia. I did include some of the bit from the Huffington Post piece by Warmflash and Entine. Yes, they are transparently writing from the perspective of this group, but at least we can say that this came with whatever editorial oversight HuffPo might have exercised (and regarding one of their own contributors to boot). So presumably they wouldn't have allowed someone to just go printing some crazy libelous hack job. But because these other sources come from basically the same group, but without the added editorial oversight, they are both less reliable and not really a "second source" for our purposes. GMGtalk 20:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough I saw some stuff that looked "English" on your page, Greenmeansgo I still find a number of troubling issues with this article. I have no time for HuffPost either - but since that "magazine" publishes both Parent and the critique of her, then I guess we can give that equal weight. I noticed some of the entries are taken from a primary (promotional source) and I question if that's fair on anyone. Parent's narrative remains that she learned about GM via a school project, but Warmflash and Entine contend that she is child of a major played in an industry that directly benefits from her "activism". One of the references even refers to her being attacked by a Monsanto "shill" in the link text. This inflammatory (and completely unchallenged) ad hominem is precisely what I face on a daily basis despite never having worked for any biotech company and only having a few friends in related industry (including Kevin Folta). I'm trying to raise these points here since I found myself openly attacked (presumably under an assumption of misogyny) the moment I opened my mouth on the talk page. Wikipedia has a problem with anti-science and anti-fact bloggers like Parent, Vani Hari, Jeffery Smith and I dare say many others in that it tries too hard to be kid gloves in order to keep things balanced. However, many things in science are settled. The Earth is round, for example and climate change (how it's cause) is a thing. Running these viewpoints unchallenged in the lede and copying Parent's, frankly deeply questionable, narrative as if it's 100% true - without ANY supporting evidence - is dangerous. Would we say that she became an activist after being abducted by aliens? Or After escaping a Nazi POW camp where she'd been frozen for 80 years... Of course these things are preposterous but no more preposterous than the claim she became aware of GMO during a school project... if her dad is who Warmflash/Entine say he is (and they're experience writers) then that blows a huge hole in that entire claim.Smidoid (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive facts. I don't know that my daughter will necessarily get her own Wikipedia article one day, but is she more likely to choose a school project based on my line of work? I mean it makes sense. Presumably that's a lot of what the discussion around the dinner table will be about. Would I use whatever personal connections I have to try to help my daughter be successful in whatever it is she does? As any parent would. That doesn't mean it isn't a concerted effort on their part to advance a POV in the media (she seems to be open about that being her explicit goal), but it does mean that the bare facts are consistent with more than one explanation.
But there are overall probably a considerable number of subjects that deserve coverage in Wikipedia, and where Wikipedia is still sitting on our laurels waiting for the sources to catch up with reality, so that we can write about it here in a way that is compliant with our content policies. GMGtalk 15:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed but the narrative we're presented doesn't sit well when balanced against the probability raised by Warmflash and Entine. We know the Occams razor and that suggests that Parent was running a narrative produced by and favouring her father's business interest. Now if that doesn't scream "shill", I don't know what does. I've admitted I have a likely biased given my connections to biotech (weak as they are) and yet I'm attacked on the talk page for simply raising this? C'mon! Whatever happened to assuming good faith? I believe that she is sufficiently notable BUT that the lede in particular is just a copy of the PR she (or likely her daddy) is churning out. This has no place here unless it can be verified. As a journalist I would have normally gone to interview some of her classmates and teachers but that time has passed. However, I think we need a healthy dose of scepticism particularly given the controversial nature of her entire argument. Smidoid (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree per above. 74.50.214.141 (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's enough reliable source coverage. Curiocurio (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The relevant criteria here are Promotionalism and NOT TABLOID. Press coverage of a person without accomplishments is one of the forms of Tabloid journalism, and nowadays not even the NYT is immune from it. An encyclopedia should be. What I hope has changed from last time is our deceased tolerance of all forms of promotionalism, in and outside of WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an excellent point - although I've said keep, I do wonder if this is promotionalism - and in fact, much of my argument surrounds just that. I question the honesty of the narrative delivered of how KidsRightToKnow came about. It's all a little too perfect and a little to convenient - never mind hugely professional considering her tender years. Smidoid (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC. Sdmarathe (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm reading a number of arguments in favour of copyediting, I'm not really reading any about deleting the article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty simple GNG pass, as demonstrated in the first AFD debate. Promotionalism is an editing issue, not a notability issue. Carrite (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Assuming you keep (I don't consider myself an editor in this matter) this article needs seriously looking at through *unbiased* eyes. There's a lot of promotionalism here and much of it pulled from sources which seem to be controlled by anti-GMO groups. Gary Ruskin, for example, rubbished Kevin Folta at length and this is became connected to Rachel because Folta was troubled by how to deal with a child. I know I was. She's not a child any more and crucially, unless someone else can prove otherwise, her father is a senior executive at a company that benefits directly from her material - including the KidsRightToKnow website. We don't have access to the email traffic from USRTK and Rachel/Wayne Parent so we don't know what involvement there was there, if any. However the similarity in both name and function is too close to overlook. In my current "off-internet" research work I've noted a web of connections between these players that cannot be overlooked. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck... Rachel is young, pretty and articulate: within the confines of her knowledge. O' Leary was attacked for doing his job - trying to get to the bottom of the story - as have I. It seems to me that because Rachel (was) young at the time we lose all objectivity. Do we give her a pass because she's a kid? She (or some responsible adult) chose to put her into that position knowing fine well she might get grilled. The response was perfect. She got a grilling and people screamed how awful and that elevated her into some martyr. But this all comes back to Wayne. Unless the connection is false (i.e. she has no connection to Nutrition House whatsoever) we have to look at everything as if she is working for her father. Any article written about her (positive or negative) has similarly got to be viewed with suspicion because she's not independent as is repeatedly claimed. Can we all remind ourselves of the true meaning of shill? Now consider that Rachel gives the appearance of being independent of Nutrition House BUT everything she does, by and large, is supportive of her parent's business and business model. We're so swamped in news these days that journalists often don't check source background as they did in my day - and that's a real problem in every area. Not just this one. Smidoid (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • unless someone else can prove otherwise, her father is a senior executive at a company that benefits directly from her material.
  • the similarity in both name and function is too close to overlook.
You realy must stop making these accusations it is up to you to prove these claims not for other editors to disprove your suspicions. Whether she's 19 or 90 she's entitled not to be rubbished. Ask for help at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors if you want a rewrite. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've checked the WHOIS registration for Rachel's site the registrant's name is Wayne Parent, Richmond Hill, Ontario. This is public information, I trust that I'm not going to get slapped for this too! More detailed info is available on the GoDaddy whois search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidoid (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you have managed to prove that when her website was set up she was under 18 and so her Dad did it for her. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Out of interest, I checked the registration address for Mr Parent and guess what? It's Nutrition House 80 West Beaver Creek Road. [1] are we really going to keep pretending this is some strange coincidence? It certainly appears to support the claims made by Warmflash and Entine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidoid (talk • contribs) 20:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.mapquest.com/canada/ontario/business-richmond-hill/nutrition-house-canada-inc-24999806
Congratulations, you have managed to prove that when her website was set up she was under 18 and so her Dad did it for her. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She didn't have to have Daddy do it, you don't have to be 18 to set up a website (even though she repeatedly claims she did) - but that's not as important as the confirmation that she's directly connected to Nutrition House and this calls the entire "plucky teen" backstory into question. In fact, the deeper I look into her - you know due diligence and all - the more the story unravels. All supporting my original assertions. There's more, of course, but Wikipedia would call it original research. You can keep the sarcasm to yourself, when people preach transparency like and hide their business connections, my hackles are raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidoid (talk • contribs) 23:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the deeper I look into her - you know due diligence and all - the more the story unravels. All supporting my original assertions. There's more, of course, but Wikipedia would call it original research. Yes we would because you're drawing your own conclusions from it. WikiPedia is WP:NOTAFORUM the only thing under discussion in this AfD is whether or not the rationale set out in the OP has a consensus. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smidoid, The Vintage Feminist, and GreenMeansGo: Er … folks? Especially Smidoid? Would you be so kind as to move this argument over article content to the article talk page? That's where article content should be discussed. This is the place where we're discussing outright deleting the article. Since all three of you support keeping it, I'd venture this isn't the place for you to argue at great length. Thank you kindly. --GRuban (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: Actually it doesn't belong there either as I pointed out in this diff on the talk page back on 29 November. It's not article content. I also stated that the only thing under discussion in this AfD is whether or not the rationale set out in the OP has a consensus in the post immediately above yours. I don't really understand why you're pinging me to make exactly the same point that I've just made. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
tl;dr, I guess. Thanks.--GRuban (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my nomination for deletion I mentioned WP:1E. I am very interested to hear what other editors thing about it; can someone address that part of the nomination please? This is what I think about that issue... An overwhelming majority of the sources mention Parent for her appearance on the Lang Exchange and not much else about her. Many of those sources are not independent WP:RS, but anti GMO publications and websites that have copied their article from elsewhere, without coverage from those sources there would be very little at all. Much of the coverage of the Lang Exchange mentions more about what was said to her than anything that was said by her 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 00:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Boneso: I don't think there's a 1E argument to be had here. She met with two national government officials, she's a contributor to a major publication, she's received fully dedicated criticism in the same publication. Like her or not, (and I think she's a hippie) ... (I trust that's not a BLP violation?) she's received sustained coverage. GMGtalk 00:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @GreenMeansGo: I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. Many bloggers and bona fidé journalists meet government officials are not notable, but if the consensus is against me I might have to change my mind. I'm interested to see where this goes. Thanks again. 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 01:10, 4 December 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Parent_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=872277991"