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 delete. Consensus here is to delete. Note that the previous nomination did not run its course, it was closed as a speedy keep and the nominator, closer, and one of the two voters is presently blocked. As for the current nomination, by the numbers we lean in favor of deletion (9 to 6, although one delete voter is under a 2-week checkuser block). The main challenge here seems to be this: If we ignore the material related to facilitated communication, then we fail WP:N, but if we include it, we are ascribing statements/opinions/activism to Amy which may actually be fabrications, and that's a WP:BLP issue. If Amy truly has no agency in the statements that a "facilitator" is making on her behalf, then ascribing this technique to her is unfairly accusing her of advancing pseudoscience, and our article's "criticism" section is criticising the victim rather than the perpetrator. ST47 ( talk) 01:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Amy Sequenzia

Amy Sequenzia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources claiming that facilitated communication is a valid technique are not reliable. Fails WP:RS. If reliable sources cannot be found, this page must be deleted. -- Wikiman2718 ( talk) 20:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete According to WP:LUNATICS and WP:FRINGE sources that endorse facilitated communication fail WP:RS as unreliable. Till now, no WP:RS have been WP:CITED. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, rephrase: Delete if obeying WP:N and WP:BLP requires us to strongly violate WP:NPOV (more precisely WP:YESPOV) and WP:MEDRS. If the article cannot abide by all these WP:RULES, it will have to be deleted as mission impossible. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep It has yet to be proven that facilitated communication is a fringe theory and that WP:FRINGE applies to this article. "The preponderance of peer-reviewed articles supports FC as a useful tool for developing communication skills." ( reference) Based on this, and the number of reliable sources that used to be cited before the page was blanked, there is no reason to delete this page. -- Anomalapropos ( talk) 00:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

    This editor is now under a topic-ban. [1] The closer should consider what weight, if any, to give to an argument that was so disruptive that they would be unable to cast or reaffirm this !vote today. Alsee ( talk) 13:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The source quoted has failed to declare a conflict of interest, the author has co-authored pro facilitated communication material with Douglas Biklen https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Contested_Words_Contested_Science.html?id=T4FtQgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:69D1:3200:19D1:833:BDD8:6A2B ( talk) 08:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Anomalapropos ( talk) 00:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This article should not have been gutted before being nominated. It is wholly misleading. Also, although this page doesn't how it, the article was nominated for deletion before and the consensus was keep.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  @ Bbb23: The "gutting" was in compliance with WP:GRAPEVINE. The previous consensus was built on the unreliable sources that I "gutted" from the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2718 ( talk • contribs) 02:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete, but without prejudice against being re-created from a more reality-based perspective. The article, before the current content dispute [2], was based entirely on overly-credulous sources treating a discredited pseudo-science as though it were real. I can understand (per WP:DESCF) using those sources to establish notability, but it's pretty tasteless to treat them as unbiased fact, especially in a BLP for an unfortunate person who can't share their side of the story through any real method. ApLundell ( talk) 00:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment The AfD page header was malformed (likely not created using {{ afd2}}) and not transcluded (now transcluded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 16). I think it's now in working order. — Paleo Neonate – 00:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ PaleoNeonate: Thank you.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  Thanks. I apologize. This is my first time trying to delete a page. -- Wikiman2718 ( talk) 02:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and especially WP:BLP. Till date I have found one reliable independent source that covers the subject substantially: Chapter 10 of Speaking for Ourselves: Conversations on Life, Music, and Autism by Michael Bakan, which was recently published by OUP and hasn't itself been properly reviewed yet. The book Sequenzia and Elizabeth Grace edited was published by a niche publisher of "weird books for weird people" and I didn't find any reviews in mainstream publications that would contribute towards the subject's notability as an author. And as for BLP: given credible skepticism whether the subject is "genuinely communicating" the words she is known for, I am afraid that the article, were it to be retained, would either become a battleground for arguments over facilitated communication or (as in the recent version) be overly reliant on weak/unreliable-sources published by true-believers in FC (hence violating WP:FRINGE). That's not what we want for a biography of an actual, living person and therefore I recommend deletion until much more extensive and balanced coverage is available. Abecedare ( talk) 04:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep The rights and wrongs of FC aside it is clear she is notable. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  That's not the point. The idea is that FC is a kind of channeling. So how do you write an article based upon sources that assume that channeling is real? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  You don't you write an article based on sources that discus it, and there seems to be a few. The issue therefore if not notability but neutrality, and that is not (to my mind) a suitable excuse for AFD. Rather that is an excuse for a re-write. Slatersteven ( talk) 22:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: It is clear that she is notable. I would love to have an article on her, but a brief google search did not return any reliable results. If anyone can find reliable sources (written from the view that FC is psudoscience) please post them here. — Wikiman2718 ( talk) 21:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  @ Slatersteven and Wikiman2718: You both say that the notability is "clear", but having looked at prior versions of the article and searched for sources myself, I am not sure how you reached that conclusion. If you wish I can present my analysis of existing sources. But to save us time, can you just point to some reliable, independent sources that contain significant coverage of the subject other than Bakan's writing that I found and discussed above? Abecedare ( talk) 22:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  Depends what you mean, [ [3]] is not by her (or anyone associated with her as far as I know). This combined with more trivial mentions (two or three paragraphs) and at least one interview with a major media organ tells me she may be notable. Of course part of the problem is that much has been written about her in books about FC (which tend to be rather credulous) but which none the less still means that withing that community she is very notable, and somewhat notable outside it. Notable enough to be mentioned by name in at least one overview of the subject by a scientist. Slatersteven ( talk) 22:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The this week article is by David M Perry, a supporter of facilitated communication who has written at least one other article defending facilitated communication as genuine. It is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:69D1:3200:19D1:833:BDD8:6A2B ( talk) 07:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• I believe that unreliable sources can be used to establish notability. If I am correct, she is certainly notable. However, I can not find any reliable sources on her, which is why I nominated this article for deletion. — Wikiman2718 ( talk) 22:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for the responses. Quick replies for now:

  • The one sentence on Sequenzia does not qualify as "significant coverage"
  • No, unreliable sources cannot be used to establish notability under WP:GNG.
  • I assume the "one interview with a major media organ" refers to this. Note that that is on the now closed HuffPost Contributor platform, and as a blog entry by a non-expert, it cannot be used as a source in a BLP; see the entry for HuffPost contributors at WP:RSP for links to 17 related RSN discussions.

  Abecedare ( talk) 23:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete According to WP:LUNATICS and WP:FRINGE sources that endorse facilitated communication fail WP:RS as unreliable. Till now, no WP:RS have been WP:CITED. Ylevental ( talk) 22:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  "Till now, no WP:RS have been WP:CITED". That's an argument to avoid at AfDs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 18:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 18:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Meets WP:GNG, having been name-checked in significant detail in publications such as The Guardian, LA Times and Slate. I expanded the article a bit and added a bunch of references. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep I added some RS and she's in a chapter in a book about Autism that I was able to fully access. I don't know about the FC thing, but the scholars at Oxford seem OK with whatever type of communication she is using with her iPad and help from her care-giver. The book is recent, too, from 2018. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  None of these sources are skeptical of facilitated communication, so none of them are reliable. This page again describes her (inaccurately) as a writer and an activist, which is why we must delete it. — Wikiman2718 ( talk) 18:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  The two posters above seem to be re-writing the article with the same sort of credulous minor coverage complained about above. One exception may be the the Bakan book. I'm not sure how to evaluate this book as a source of notability, but it certainly doesn't establish acceptance as WP:FRINGE requires,(Author is a musician not a medical professional), so, even if notable, its claims should really still be phrased as claims not facts. ApLundell ( talk) 18:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  The Guardian's not a reliable source? Are you Nigel Farage? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  According to Wikiman, no source is reliable if he deems the source sympathetic to facilitated communication. How this editor has lasted here without being blocked for an admitted disruptive agenda is beyond me, but I'm not up to fighting that battle.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  The question is not whether or not The Guardian is a reliable source. The question is whether two short paragraphs in an article not actually about her establishes notability. Normally that would not be enough. Lots of people are mentioned by The Guardian in passing.

  (And beyond notability, does it illustrate scientific "acceptance" as required to uncritically report WP:FRINGE ideas as fact instead of claims?) ApLundell ( talk) 20:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  The author of the chapter in the OUP book is certainly convinced about the facilitated communication, but he is an ethnomusicologist, not an expert in autism, and the cases here show how convinced many non-experts have initially been, in cases which were later overturned. Pam D 07:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep The sourcing is a fair start, and Amy Sequenzia is quite the notable subject. Also, all these attempts to dismiss this article due to facilitated communication not being viewed as scientific is, if you ask me, grossly unfair. TH1980 ( talk) 04:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment WP:AVOIDVICTIM applies here. Also, all of the mainstream media sources push a fringe positions. Per WP:NFRINGE, "a fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." -- Wikiman2718 ( talk) 09:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)-- Wikiman2718 ( talk) 05:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  Please explain why. 86.133.149.192 ( talk) 07:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  The subject of the article has been victimized by the practice of facilitated communication. Failing to properly acknowledge that the facilitator is putting words in her mouth would be victimizing her further. Also, the subject is not notable outside of the group of adherents to the pseudoscience of facilitated communication. -- Wikiman2718 ( talk) 09:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  Can you point to a source that says that Sequenzia has been 'victimized'? If one exists, it should almost certainly be cited in the article. If on the other hand, there isn't a source, your assertion that victimization has taken place would seem to be based on the assumption that the 'facilitator' is intentionally 'putting words in her mouth', which again would need a source, given that most discussions of FC seem to be based on the premise that the 'facilitators' genuinely believe it works. Being wrong (even very wrong) about something is rather different than intended malice, which is what 'victimization' would seem to imply. Personally, I don't see WP:AVOIDVICTIM as being relevant here, if the consensus is that general notability criteria are met. 86.133.149.192 ( talk) 16:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  Here is a source that calls FC “an abuse of human rights”. [4] — Wikiman2718 ( talk) 18:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  Actually, it is a source that says that FC has been called an abuse of human rights by someone else. But it wasn't what I asked for which was a source stating that Sequenzia has been 'victimized'. We don't take general opinions about a topic as evidence for specifics. Particularly when making claims of malice regarding specific people - i.e. the 'facilitator'. 86.133.149.192 ( talk) 20:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  There is no claim of malice against the facilitator. And we do sometimes take general statements to prove the specific. For instance, the pseudoscientific status of perpetual motion implies the pseudoscientific status of any proposed perpetual motion machine. Additionally, I am not aware of any standards of evidence for victimhood. I believe that we can consider her a victim if we think she’s a victim, and I am arguing that we should. — Wikiman2718 ( talk) 20:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  I'm not sure how one can claim 'human rights abuse' without at least implying malice, but whatever. In general, decisions about permissible content are based on specific sources (and/or the lack of them), and not on what we 'think' or 'believe'. WP:AVOIDVICTIM clearly allows for some discretion in this context, but it doesn't automatically rule out all articles on victims: even victims of actual crimes. We have an article on Patty Hearst for example, which consists almost entirely of content relating to her kidnapping and subsequent events. I think you might do better to stick to arguing the case about notability in the general sense, where policy is clearer. Your opinion on 'human rights abuse' and 'victimhood' will presumably be taken into account by whoever closes this discussion, but they may find it less than persuasive. And I have to say that I find something of a contradiction between the arguments you present here and the fact that you have created an article entitled List of abuse allegations made through facilitated communication which seems to consist entirely of content regarding otherwise non-notable individuals. Content which amply demonstrates that individuals were (via misplaced allegations via 'facilitation') victims of a credulous acceptance of the technique. If one is going to rule out content on 'victims' of FC, it should probably be done more consistently. Or at least, in a manner that looks a little less overtly partisan. 86.133.149.192 ( talk) 21:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  We are indeed partisans of WP:RS/AC ( medical consensus), no doubt about that. It is a violation of WP:NPOV to state that Sequenzia herself is the writer of the writings attributed to her, since that is not an objectively assessable fact. In fact, she could be merely the sockpuppet of her facilitator, who is in the best case self-delusional and in the worst case a fraudster. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  Tgeorgescu, you should be aware that WP:BLP applies to talk pages. I suggest you keep the hyperbole down. And then read what I actually wrote. 86.133.149.192 ( talk) 22:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  At this article WP:N and WP:BLP strongly clash with WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS. There is no point abiding by two of those WP:RULES while strongly violating the other two. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  In which case, I suggest you think again, before violating WP:BLP... 86.133.149.192 ( talk) 22:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  I agree that [[WP:AVOIDVICTIM] does not rule out an article on this subject. But it is relevant, and if we decide not to delete the article, we must write from this prospective. Actually, I am starting to come around to the idea of keeping the article now that I see how it is progressing. I was worried that we wouldn’t have enough good sources to maintain WP:PARITY.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2718 ( talk • contribs)

  Damned if I do, damned if I don't, isn't it? We have to abort the article as mission impossible. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  In as much as I have an opinion on the merits of this article that isn't shaped by my more general opinion that an 'anyone can edit' encyclopaedia is a fundamentally flawed concept, I've reached much the same conclusion. Which is why I've not chosen to !Vote (not that opinions anonymous IPs tend to get much notice anyway). There probably is the potential for a good encyclopaedic article on Sequenzia, I'm just not entirely convinced that Wikipedia is capable of producing it... 86.133.149.192 ( talk) 22:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  Yup, maybe an encyclopedia which does not take WP:SPOV seriously would be a better choice. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  This isn't just a scientific story though. It is about real people. Some who can speak for themselves. Some who claim to speak for others. One who appears not be able to speak at all. Reducing it to nothing but 'science' would do it little service. 86.133.149.192 ( talk) 22:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  If we'd have to violate WP:YESPOV Wikipedia cannot have an article about her. There is a limit upon what can be written inside Wikipedia articles. And that limit is Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. At Wikipedia the burden of proof has never been upon those who say that Gregorian Bivolaru's claim to be in contact with an alien civilization is bogus. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep but clarify the discredited/controversial status of her means of communication: Reading this nomination, alerted to it by the list of deletion discussions on women, I saw "Sources claiming that facilitated communication is a valid technique are not reliable." and thought "What on earth? No way is that a sound argument". But on looking at facilitated communication and in particular List of abuse allegations made via facilitated communication I felt quite shocked and can see where the nominator is coming from. Sequenzia does seem to be notable, but the article underplays the status of her means of communication. Our wikipedia article describes Facilitated communication as "a scientifically discredited technique". At the very least the lead sentence needs to change " produced through facilitated communication" to "produced through the discredited method of facilitated communication" or, more neutrally, "produced through the controversial method of facilitated communication", to alert readers (not all of whom are going to click on the link) to the status of Facilitated communication (just as we'd gloss any other little-known term, or add a geog context to a placename). She does appear to be notable and we owe it to our readers to have an article about her, but it needs to be more informative. Pam D 07:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC) expanded 07:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Nice -- Quite nice. ∯WBG ^converse 16:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• WP:BLP asks us to pay particular attention to human dignity. This is such a challenging task here that I lean towards delete. The FC-induced writings are very likely to be inauthentic but structuring the article around debunking them can make it come across as an attack piece with the subject of the article caught in the crossfire. Haukur ( talk) 10:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC) reply

These are exactly my thoughts, while the article exists questioning the veracity of achievements within it look like bad faith attacks on the subject rather than rightful rejection of the debunked method of facilitated communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.22.66 ( talk) 12:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This Article is poorly written, and the Subject has insufficient notoriety. - Nolan Perry ^{Yell at me!} 01:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Insufficient sourcing at this time to write a policy-compliant article. Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion lists #9 Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. I see no reasonable way to reasonably comply with Wikipedia's various policies until we have sourcing sufficiently addressing the communication being attributed to Amy Sequenzia. It looks like at least fifteen policies, guidelines, and respected-essays have been cited above, and that's just the beginning of the mess. The article is intractable without more sourcing. Attempts to deal with the article have unavoidably been dragged into the territory of Original Research and Synthesis, and we can't even include ABOUTSELF in this biography. The nominally "self statements" are supplied by someone else, and there is sufficient question of their authorship that they clearly fail our reliable sourcing standards. In regards to the other available sources, note that the Reliability of any source is not absolute. Reliability is always evaluated in terms of a specific work from that publisher and in terms of the specific information being cited, in relation to the current article. Even a top-line source such as New York Times would be severely called into question at Reliable Source Noticeboard if the NYT published an interview or other information obtained via telepathy or channeling of dead spirits, without even commenting that the communication might be questioned, without giving any indication they even considered the issue and that they actively consider this case reliable.
  If Amy is the author of the words attributed to her, I see no reasonable way to simultaneously comply with BLP and other policies until we have adequate sourcing about her communication. The attempts to indirectly attribute the words to her in a qualified manner are atrocious for a living biography.
  If Amy is not the author of the words attributed to her, I see no reasonable way to simultaneously comply with BLP and other policies until we have adequate sourcing about the source of those words. The attempts to indirectly attribute the words to her in a qualified manner are atrocious for a living biography. Alsee ( talk) 13:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Lacks independent reliable sources. Some of the sources are even from blogs. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR. Masum Reza ^📞 01:09, 24 June 2019 (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.