| Revision as of 05:47, 25 April 2006 editCydebot (talk | contribs)6,812,251 editsm Robot - Removing extraneous links to old VfD templates.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:36, 11 December 2008 edit undoBillions (talk | contribs)211 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to a living person. A record of the deletion debate can be found in the deletion history. | |||
| This page should be deleted because as ] states the votes were counted wrong and the person who the page was written about is no-notable and has even contacted Misplaced Pages expressing that she should not be included because of this. ] 18:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. | ||
| #VfD is not about vote-counting — read ]: "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. The votes are a means to gauge consensus, and not the ends in themselves (])." | |||
| #She didn't say that she ''shouldn't'' be included, only that she wouldn't mind if editors did delete the article on her. | |||
| #Her point wasn't based on a technicality of the voting system. | |||
| #This article has survived two VfDs this year, the last less than two months ago. What's going on here? is there something personal in the air? ] (] 18:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *When I asked about this on ], ] replied: | |||
| *:"The general opinion in my interpretation was that renominations have to be allowed but that if the article is renominated too soon, it is likely to be shouted down as an attempt to game the system. Some argued that it would take as long as 6 months for a renomination could/would be assumed to be in good faith. The majority opinion was probably closer to 3 months. Inside that limit, the burden of proof is very strongly on the nominator to show why this renomination is appropriate and why the community should consider the question again so soon." | |||
| *:It's not clear to me that the nominator has shown any such thing. ] (] 11:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *:: While as closer I share your disquiet about this prompt renomination I am inclined to let it stand. VfD voters have shown their capacity to take such factors into account, and a substantial discussion of the merits is in progress, so whatever the circumstances of the renomination I don't think it would be appropriate to pull it. --]|] 11:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Fair enough. Let's see what happens. ] (] 21:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * I closed ]. The statement that is was closed wrong is a result of ]'s belief that a 2:1 ratio of votes to delete should result in an article's deletion. For the purpose of closing VfDs, I do not accept that 2:1 constitutes a rough consensus, so I closed the listing--and other votes with similar results--with no consensus. --]|] 19:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Most admins ''do'' count 2:1 as a rough consensus, so if another admin decided to override your ruling would they be right to do so? Who gets to decide this? Is it too much to ask for a little consistency? -] 16:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ** '''Some''' admins count as low as 66% to be a rough consensus. I don't think admins ever override one another's judgement on closing a Vfd; it isn't in our interests to do so. My closing of the second VfD was well within the consensus on policy; don't assume that there is any significant opposition to administrator discretion on consensus--I think you would find that there isn't any. As a matter of conduct, I never engage in opposition to administrators who think I made an error and take steps to correct it. However such an act in the case of a VfD would be unprecedented and--in the current case--would be seen by most editors as utterly unwarranted. --]|] 16:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| *'''Keep''' since it's been kept twice recently. ] 19:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *While this VfD is too soon after the last one, '''Delete''' as non-notable. She only gets 167 google hits, none of the "films" she's been in are notable, and her fellow "actors" have for the most part been deleted already. —] 20:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy keep'''. I have no idea why so many people think that the notability-criterion has to be so high for people when it's so low for everything else. Why the rather snide scare quotes, incidentally? Is this part of the peculiar sub-current that's going on this case, with three nominations for VfD in five months, and defacement of the article? Am I missing something? ] (] 21:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **'''COMMENT''' What defacement of the article are you refering to professor? Did someone blank out the page at some point or something? Seeing that neither the person who started the stupid article and the person whom the article is written about both don't want the article gone it is rather stupid for you to insist that it should be kept! Now the article, it seems, can't even be altered or added to unless it meets your approval because you promised to look after the article makes it pointless for it even being around anymore. If you find something offensive such as a photo you proceed to erase it. I can't see the point of this article exsisting any longer unless it's on your user page! ] 22:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' based on recent results. ] 21:14, 2005 May 22 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' --] ] 21:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. Please read ]. ] ] 21:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. Not notable. According to the IMDb link, she's been in two direct-to-video B-movies by the same director. Unless they happen to have a huge cult following, I see no reason to keep articles on the movies ''or'' the actress. <font color=#00A86B>]</font><font color=#B87333>]</font> 22:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. Well, it's direct to DVD these days, and you can buy it from Amazon (along with virtually anything else). Not that many people have bothered to, it doesn't make the top 50,000. How many sales is that, and how long would it take to run them off on a PC DVD writer, I wonder? Do the people voting keep with no explanation want articles on all actors and actresses in those 50,000 films with more sales, or are they voting keep on technicality? ] 22:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **First, Amazon isn't the only place that people buy DVDs (I've never bought from them, and I buy far too many CDs and DVDs for my poor wallet). Secondly, that isn't how the Amazon ratings work; something can be high one day and low the next (I've watched the sales of my own books go up and down like jet-propelled yo-yos). Thirdly, yes, I'd love to replace all the articles on Pokemon and comic-book characters (and hardware), and radio masts, etc., with articles on real people doing real things, and thus entertaining hundreds of thousands of other people. How many people do you think ever look up ], or ], or ]? ] (] 22:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *** If you have any proof that the films this actress has been in have entertained hundreds of thousands of people then please provide it. But quite simply there are a huge number of films produced every year, and most of them disappear without making a ripple. ] 08:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ** '''Comment''' ] asks: ''Do the people voting keep with no explanation want articles on all actors and actresses in those 50,000 films with more sales'' Well that's not what they're voting on. This is about a particular person, not a class of people. It may be that this actress's face looks particularly sympathetic, or that the plots of her films tend to tickle the sense of humor of those reading the article and its associated links. It may be that some of those voting to keep are simply reacting to this article being listed for deletion for a third time in just five months or so, and barely a month after the last listing. All of these may affect the outcome of a VfD listing. I currently don't have a vote to make on this yet, but it's simply wrong to imply that those who vote to keep this article must thereby justify their failure to enter 50,000 articles on other little-known actors and actresses. --]|] 11:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment.''' I can’t say I agree with everything the Michael Moore wantabe said on this articles talk page. And previously I had voted to keep this page, however in light of the info that she actually contacted Misplaced Pages. Ms. Nogueira actually writing concerning her page and suggesting that she wouldn’t mind it being deleted sounds like a polite way of saying that she is not ready for this type of publicity yet. Perhaps it would be wise to remove it if she is not comfortable with it. Perhaps also, she does not like some of the raucous arguing that goes on that sometimes even makes fun of the people that have been listed in an article. And if there is some sort of attacking of the page that has been cited maybe it would be better to remove it. I have yet to decide at this point. ] 23:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''DELeTE''' Sorry, but if Eric Bruno Borgman, who is an actor producer and director, gets deleted with 3,530 hits on Google than she should too! What defacements is the Oxford professor talking about? ] 02:26, May 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Comment: I have no intention of sticking my hand into a nest that's already abuzz, but the notability standard does and should differ depending upon context. X Google hits for a scientific site is greater significance than 2X the hits for a porn site, given that porn sites multiply links intentionally. Similarly, X hits for an environmentalist is greater than 2X those hits for an actress, because the actress is guaranteed hits via the movie production company, the distribution company, archival sites, and, inevitably, fans. If an avant-garde composer got 1,000 hits, we'd be looking at a world leader (see how many hits Paul Drescher gets, e.g.). The problem with straight to video actors and actresses is that the numbers are staggering, and we ought to be looking at whether or not a career (not a person) has been such that its subject will be sought by researchers ''and can be discussed'' rather than just catalogued. If all you can say is "Was in A, B, and C," then that's not encyclopedic. That's just a record, and IMDB is going to kick our butts in every case. An article is not just a fact, nor just a list of facts. ] 02:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''', ]. This nomination seems to stem from MichaelMoore's actions regarding the removal of an image from the article and claims it was censorship. Why anyone would argue that a pointless image of a pair of breasts could be seen as relevant or encyclopaedic, when the DVD cover suffices seems to me a case of sour grapes. ] 06:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. Non-notable actor. Perhaps she will achieve encyclopedic notability later in her career, but not yet. ] 08:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' as vanity, to reiterate my earlier vote. I don't particularly like the fact that a VfD result may differ depending on which admin closes it, but I can't think of a better system, and I believe both Tony and Fiend are in good faith here even if they disagree. ]]] 09:43, May 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep'''. ] — ] 13:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy delete''' as it should have been deleted after the last vote. If people are going to keep raising the bar midgame as to what is required to delete an article we might as well shut down VfD right now. -] 16:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **This makes no sense; no-one has "raised the bar" — I suspect that you simply haven't read VfD policy. ] (] 16:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ** '''Comment'''. I have put an explanatory message about VfD decision-making on ]. --]|] 11:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' ] . ] 10:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. Mainly because the talk page history suggests to me that this is a bad-faith nomination. Prior to listing for deletion, {{User|MichaelMoore}} had put a picture on the article. This listing seems to be the result of a rebuff on that. --]|] 10:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' I give heavy weighting to the fact that the subject of the article contacted us saying she does not belong in Misplaced Pages and asking how she can delete the article. She said "How can I alter or delete an entry on myself that I did not create?" She then said "Also, if the editors of this site would like to delete this article that would be okay with me. I didn't post it and while I appreciate the mention I don't feel I belong in Wikkipedia. Thanks." ] 15:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Delete'''. After reading the exact words of this actress I'm sorry to tell the people who support this article that I have to vote to delete it. Someone basically asking how they can delete the article makes me believe that it must have caused her some stress. Although I feel she is worth having an article about I have to vote delete knowing what I know from the above mentioned text. ] 17:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **To the two preceding comments: I replied to her message, reassuring her, and she replied to me (on my Talk page), thanking me, and apparently successfully reassured. Her message is therefore no reason to delete this article (in fact, personal requests by subjects don't in any case consitute grounds for deletion). ] (] 17:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***I'm sorry, but I started the page and if I had known that it was to have caused this person any undue stress, I would not have done so. It is obvious from her statements that she doesn't want to be included in this encyclopedia and I think it is terrible that you would suggest that her personal request doesn't mean we should delete it. I think that is rather insensative and I regret that I ever started the article. I think her wishes in this case should be granted and that the page should be deleted. ] 16:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ****"Subject wants his/her article deleted" isn't a valid reason for deletion. It sets a bad precedent. (Note that I support deletion of the article on other grounds.) <font color=#00A86B>]</font><font color=#B87333>]</font> 21:07, May 25, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' ]. ] 05:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' this non notable junk already. ] 19:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' in the interest of maintaining the integrity of the VfD process. Too soon to renominate. ] 18:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. This is a bad faith nomination by MichaelMoore. ] 05:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. Another non-notable article from the same batch of articles that have mostly already been deleted. ] 23:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ⚫ | |||
Revision as of 17:36, 11 December 2008
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Lorna Nogueira
The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to a living person. A record of the deletion debate can be found in the deletion history.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.