Deletion of Amy Sequenzia (2nd nomination)

Comment: Lacks independent reliable sources. Some of the sources are even from blogs. Fails , , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO||WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: Insufficient sourcing at this time to write a policy-compliant article'''. eletion policy#Reasons for deletion|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D||WP:OR||WP:SYN||WP:ABOUTSELF||WP:RSN)

Comment: per ,  and especially . Till date I have found one reliable independent source that covers the subject substantially: Chapter 10 of ''https://books.google.com/books?id=gnpVDwAAQBAJ&pg=FA201&#v=onepage&q&f=false 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. https://books.google.com/books?id=mN9LrgEACAAJ& The book Sequenzia and Elizabeth Grace edited was published by a http://autpress.com/about-us/ 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 https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/facilitated-communication-persists-despite-scientific-criticism/ 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amy_Sequenzia&oldid=901412660 recent version) be overly reliant on weak/unreliable-sources published by true-believers in FC (hence violating ). 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NAUTHOR||WP:BLP||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: but ''without prejudice'' against being re-created from a more reality-based perspective. The article, before the current content dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amy_Sequenzia&oldid=897470105, was based entirely on overly-credulous sources treating a discredited pseudo-science as though it were real. I can understand (per ) 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:DESCF)

Comment: It has yet to be proven that facilitated communication is a fringe theory and that  applies to this article. "The preponderance of peer-reviewed articles supports FC as a useful tool for developing communication skills." (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1540796914555581 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)