| Revision as of 15:51, 21 August 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (del. endorsed)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:56, 5 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,252 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray"><</font> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <span style="color:gray;"><</span> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <font color="gray">></font> |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">></span> |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
</div> |
|
</div> |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
</noinclude> |
|
</noinclude> |
|
===16 August 2006=== |
|
===16 August 2006=== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:''AfD'' ] |
|
|
The posting of this individual ought to be reinstated.<br> |
|
|
A simple search of the web demonstrates the individual has presence and impact on society. (Try searching "Stephen Goodfellow" and "science") or ("Stephen Goodfellow" and "art") or ("Stephen Goodfellow" and "music") or ("Stephen Goodfellow" and "historian"). |
|
|
As to the removal of my article, I strongly object to the cavalier manner in which my research was by the initial critic.<br> |
|
|
Language use such as 'bollocks' does not set the stage for a reasonable thought process and is an overpowering word that easily sways. It may well be that Mr. Goodfellow is vain, but it does not in any way alter his contributions to society.<br> |
|
|
Please consider reinstating, or if the article deleted, allow reposting.<br> |
|
|
] 14:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Comment''' I'm neutral on the deletion, but... why are you talking about yourself in the third person (mostly)? If you're Goodfellow, just say so. <b><span style="color: #f33">·]·</span></b> 18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Sorry''' it's habit.<br> |
|
|
This is difficult. Let me first say that I discovered the article in wikipedia and expanded it. I try to distance myself from the subjective when dealing with what eventually becomes historical documentation. It seems to me that we attempt to record what we know best, and inevitably we become the subject in question. For me this occurres especially on the documentary sites that I maintain, such as , or . When appearing in these, I almost always refer to myself in the third person for publishing reasons. Should my approach be any different when dealing WikiPedia articles, even when it is in the first person?<br> |
|
|
] 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''': It was deleted as a repost of a previously AfD'd article. If the appeal is of the speedy, I would like some evidence that this was a different article. If this is an appeal of the original AfD, then we will need to hear that such is the case so we can examine its process. (I.e. the most recent deletion was according to procedure. The first deletion might or might not have been. I'm only endorsing the most recent.) ] 21:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Previous Article''' - All information placed within the article (now gone?) was verifiable through more than one published secondary source and the subject matter demonstrated societal impact. If WikiPedia administrators would agree, the article can be reconstructed and reviewed subject to publishing?<br>] 13:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I don't know what "previous article" means, but it seems userfiable. AfD was valid. ~ ] 15:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''TrialsandErrors''', Your The - a good measure if ever I read one. Out of curiosity I rooted around for about thirty minutes and was able to satisfy the rule. I found some very results as well. I love the web.<br> |
|
|
] 06:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*If the copyright tags on ] and others are correct then you are either the subject or connected to the subject. Writing articles about ] or individuals with whom you are connected is a ]. Checking your contributions I see little evidence of any productive contribution to the encyclopaedia beyond promotion of Stephen Goodfellow and his website. So: '''Endorse deletion''' as apparent ], AfD was valid per process and per policy. ] 12:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Just zis Guy you know?''', Strongly disagree with two of your comments, the reasons given in the order they were proffered.<br> |
|
|
• It already states above that I expanded the article. I am NOT the originator, thus not a vanity posting. As to images, would you prefer I or someone else garner the identical images of lesser quality from news organizations, and go through the paperwork of getting them to release them?<br> |
|
|
• The name Stephen Goodfellow is synonymous with the web archiving of ] history. To not give a description of the author seems, well silly.<br> |
|
|
However, I do see the perceived conflict<br> |
|
|
If it is the pleasure of the administrators, I would suggest the article in question be removed, but opened to a third party. I can ask , Public Services Librarian for Wayne State University, if she will do the honors. Would this satisfy?<br>] 16:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*It rather depends on whether she has any material connection to the subject. ] 22:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', valid AfD and no convincing reason given to overturn it. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
The reason for deletion is: ''it is an article about a person or group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
But there was no deletion discussion page, and most of porn stars have their article, so why delete this? or why not delete all other porn stars articles? {{unsigned|201.211.68.206}} of 16.08.06 |
|
|
*It is always helpful if one signs. And, all porn stars are not notable to conform to ]. --] 08:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Does she meet the proposed guideline ] (or even come close)? If so she should be undeleted, if not there is no reason to. ] 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1163310/) has 33 films listed for her (I'll spare you the titles) and their porn listings are often very incomplete, so she might qualify. It's possible that the original article was a substub, like "Shelby Belle is a porn star. She's really hot." Wouldn't be the first time an article like that got speedied. ] 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''': The content was as follows: "'''Shelby Belle''' (born ], ] in ], ], ]) is a porn star. She has also been credited as '''Shelby Bell'''." The fact that it's a single line (plus, of course, of course, of course, '''''of course''''' a box) makes it a perfect G1 speedy delete. X is Y = Shelby Belle is a porn star. When there is content, it can be considered by AfD and measured against guidelines. ] 20:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:*OK, I was close. IMO the hotness would have been better than the Montrealness. ] 20:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:*I'm sometimes reminded of the ] parody of ]: "It's a fact. It's a ''Canadian'' fact." She's a porn star. She's a ''Canadian'' porn star. However, it did have a box, and at least this version of the box (unlike other porn startlet boxes) didn't list her ''blood type.'' ] 02:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::*But did it have the answer to the eternal question: "''Natural bust: yes/no''" ? -- ] 03:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::*Alas, it didn't. It gave her measurement as 34B, so, for those who have actually met a g-g-g-girl, it probably does answer the question. ] 11:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*I looked at her site. As they appear to be a normal size and shape, it seems likely they are original equipment. ] 13:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' I think we should make this Geogre's Rule on DRV's. If the complaint at DRV is longer than the article itself, it's an automatic endorse. ~ ] 07:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
This article was created on 4 July 2006 and recently deleted by {{Admin|Mikkalai}} without, near as I can tell, a CSD tag, a PROD tag or an AfD on it. Posted without comment because I think that it might be worth reviewing. ] may have bearing. Maybe it's completely a hoax but I did get a fair number of . He has been notified. I take no position myself. ++]: ]/] 01:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' Hoaxes aren't speediable, neither are dicdefs. Maybe there isn't more than a dicdef to the article, but it's been on Wiktionary since 2004 without complaints. ~ ] 00:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC) |
|