| Revision as of 14:53, 4 October 2017 editWorld's Lamest Critic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,233 edits →Olympia Nelson: A clear instance of ignoring any kind of critical thought← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:18, 4 October 2017 edit undoGeo Swan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,843 edits replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| *'''Snow keep''' -- This nomination is a clear instance of what happens when we ignore the advice of ]. When half a dozen cabient ministers go on record about images of someone, and the press covers the controversy, in detail, then that individual measures up to the inclusion criteria of GNG. ] (]) 13:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC) | *'''Snow keep''' -- This nomination is a clear instance of what happens when we ignore the advice of ]. When half a dozen cabient ministers go on record about images of someone, and the press covers the controversy, in detail, then that individual measures up to the inclusion criteria of GNG. ] (]) 13:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ::The controversy is in the appropriate article. ] (]) 14:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC) | ::The controversy is in the appropriate article. ] (]) 14:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ::*'''Woah!''' | |||
| ::# The link nominator offered did not have to be an old-fashioned uni-directional link. It would have been far more useful to have used a wikilink to ]. That is the article about Nelson's mother. It was Nelson's mother who published controversial photos of her, a decade ago. But Nelson was far more than a mere photographic model. | |||
| ::# Nelson is still quite young. Nevertheless professional editors decided she could write authoritative comments on the controversial topic of the online shaming of girls and young women. I am sorry, but I don't think there is any question that this is a strong notability factor. Further, I don't think there is any question that it makes no more sense to shoehorn coverage of young adult Olympia Nelson's publicatons into her mother's article than it would make to shoehorn the article on ] into the article on her father, ], or the article on ] into the article on his father, ]. | |||
| ::# Nominator says that ] already covers everything notable about Nelson. Okay. This is just a single paragraph. Not only does it leave out all coverage of Nelson's notable recent views, it only briefly mentions one of the politicians who offered notable comment on the original photos, where the existing article on Nelson cover the notable comments of four cabinet members. <p>This make nominator's assertion that only one paragraph of coverage is ''"appropriate"'' essentially a radical informationectomy. <p>Nominator, could you please return here, and see if you can explain why the single paragraph in the article on Nelson's mother is the ''"appropriate"'' amount of coverage of Nelson? 23:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)] (]) | |||
Revision as of 23:18, 4 October 2017
Olympia Nelson
- Olympia Nelson (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)
Biography seems to exist only to draw attention to the subject having posed naked as a six year-old. Fails WP:GNG. The editor who created this article appears to have retired. Contested WP:PROD. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Snow keep -- This nomination is a clear instance of what happens when we ignore the advice of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When half a dozen cabient ministers go on record about images of someone, and the press covers the controversy, in detail, then that individual measures up to the inclusion criteria of GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- The controversy is already covered in the appropriate article. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Woah!
- The link nominator offered did not have to be an old-fashioned uni-directional link. It would have been far more useful to have used a wikilink to Polixeni Papapetrou#Controversy. That is the article about Nelson's mother. It was Nelson's mother who published controversial photos of her, a decade ago. But Nelson was far more than a mere photographic model.
- Nelson is still quite young. Nevertheless professional editors decided she could write authoritative comments on the controversial topic of the online shaming of girls and young women. I am sorry, but I don't think there is any question that this is a strong notability factor. Further, I don't think there is any question that it makes no more sense to shoehorn coverage of young adult Olympia Nelson's publicatons into her mother's article than it would make to shoehorn the article on Stella McCartney into the article on her father, Paul McCartney, or the article on Adam Cohen into the article on his father, Leonard Cohen.
- Nominator says that Polixeni Papapetrou#Controversy already covers everything notable about Nelson. Okay. This is just a single paragraph. Not only does it leave out all coverage of Nelson's notable recent views, it only briefly mentions one of the politicians who offered notable comment on the original photos, where the existing article on Nelson cover the notable comments of four cabinet members.
This make nominator's assertion that only one paragraph of coverage is "appropriate" essentially a radical informationectomy.
Nominator, could you please return here, and see if you can explain why the single paragraph in the article on Nelson's mother is the "appropriate" amount of coverage of Nelson? 23:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Geo Swan (talk)
- The controversy is already covered in the appropriate article. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)