Misplaced Pages

Brittny Gastineau

Brittny Gastineau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Isn't just that she (was, seemingly temporarily) famous? I'm trying pretty hard to see even what cited and verified parts of WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or even WP:ENT she comes under, especially considering the quality of the sources cited. Can you explain? Etrigan (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

She seems pretty notable to me. Off2riorob (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Where's the policy for seemingly notable? Isn't it that if it can't be cited (and that article's had plenty opportunity for someone to sort it out) it's a deletion candidate? If I'm missing a policy here (rather than "I kinda think it should be there" then please let me know! Etrigan (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is AFD if you feel strongly about it. WP:SEEMSNOTABLETOME Off2riorob (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, I'd decline a {{db-a7}} (if there was one), as it looks like there should be notability. If this discussion wasn't taking place, I'd probably {{prod}} it - as it is, it needs more/better refs IMHO to meet Misplaced Pages:Notability (people). TFOWR 09:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. and good morning. I am going to vote keep. Off2riorob (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

TFOW, discussion is taking place because Off2riorob removed my PROD! :) I could req AFD I suppose, but I'll probably back-burner this one until I can have a look for decent sources. If there are none, then I will AFD it. Etrigan (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, my point was that I'd probably have prodded it too. Though I suspect there will be much referencing occurring to dispel us of that notion: I'd be really surprised if the article couldn't establish notability. ;-) TFOWR 19:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also be surprised. She is a heck of a lot more notable that some playboy playmates I have seen supported with worse citations. The article does need work, perhaps I will look at it tomorrow. Thanks for the nudge. Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Incidentally, it looked to me like she was generally notable (there should be wide-ranging media coverage, etc, based on her biog in the article) rather than WP:BLP1E "notable". Is the article missing a big piece of juice gossip? TFOWR 19:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Also both her Mother and Father are notable and have articles here so deletion via prod is out of the question, the worst thing that could happen to her would be a merger..... Gastineau is the daughter of Lisa Gastineau and former New York Jets player Mark Gastineau... Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, mother Lisa Gastineau was nominated for deletion and kept in January 2010. (That article was one of the those deleted in January 2010 crazy time and then reinstated.)--Milowent (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Milowent for the input, if you have an interest in the family any citation searching is as always totally appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look, we don't even have her birthday on it (November 6, 1983). At the moment I'm trying to eliminate all unreferenced BLPs from April 2008.--Milowent (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Respect Milowent, that is a good project. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking her parents divorce should be cited and how-oh-how would I do it from the (curiously minimal) sources available?... when I realised both her parents are bluelinked. I'm guessing the WP:BLP1E is the reality TV with her mother? (Apart from that she seems to be in supporting roles - real life and Brüno). TFOWR 19:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED applies though - and if she's not notable, there's hardly even any reason to mention her in her parents' articles, surely? Etrigan (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED applies in deletion discussions; it wouldn't apply for a speedy (all we want is an indication that she could be significant or important), and anything goes for a prod. It would apply in AFD: "notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities". Hence my concern that we should start looking for references to establish wide-ranging media coverage. TFOWR 09:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

She is not massively notable but she is notable enough for a wiki BLP. imo. She has some limited acting work and some modeling and some celebrity coverage and 68,000 followers on twitter! Off2riorob (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That is an assertion, and entirely POV, unless you can back it up with WP Notability policy that counts those things. No? Etrigan (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Although it is not a sign of wiki noteworthiness, her BLP here is getting about seven and a half thousand views a month Off2riorob (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Essays

Hi Rob, I've written a couple of essays -- WP:HAZING and WP:Notable person survival kit. Would appreciate it if you could have a look through and let me know if anything is missing. --JN466 12:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, off out for a couple of hours but I will have a good read when I return, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I had a look, both look good to me. I WP:BOLDly added a link to WP:DOLT in Hazing, didn't think it would help in the survival kit. Feel free to revert if I've overlooked it already being in there... TFOWR 13:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I had forgotten about DOLT. Have added it to the survival kit as well. --JN466 16:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries! My thinking with the survival kit was that it could possibly be too much information, and it might give the survivor something to wikilawyer about. I'm possibly not being as positive as I could be, though ;-) TFOWR 16:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at them they are well written and informative, perhaps they will be useful for wikipedia editors to also read when they bump into such a situation, often I have seen railroading of such issues when in fact they require a greater level of attention and respect. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. I am hoping that people will link to them when appropriate. There is a little discussion about the essays at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Notable_people_who_edit_Wikipedia:_2_essays and at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Notable_people_who_edit_Wikipedia:_2_essays. --JN466 19:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If we note any tendency that it's used for wikilawyering then I agree we should address it. But in my experience, people who come here are naive. It takes a while to learn wikilawyering! :) The DOLT scenario may help them understand just how big a problem they can get themselves into if they start using legal language ... --JN466 19:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to say

thanks Verbal chat 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, rudeness is a lack of civility and helps no one. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Level of involvement

As you have commented here, could you please state your level of involvement (if any) next to your support/oppose/comment in that discussion? Although all input would/should be considered, this will help clarify a community consensus from a local consensus among involved users. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to declare any involvement. My involvment in the issue is related to my attempting to stop the disruption and edit warring, as it has occured through this issue at multiple articles as mystified users reinserted the expression and were directed to some obscure discussion page with which a consensus claim was asserted if anyone objected. I am not involved one way or the other about the actual British Isles inclusion or exclusion. I have recently suggested that we allow highking to remove all instances of the British Isles in the hope that the disruption and warring would stop. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Eckhart Tolle

Hi Rob, Thanks for participating on the Eckhart Tolle article. There is still one outstanding issue still under discussion. If you would care to comment. It's here: Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing of Polanski

Please refrain from reverting edits on Polanski without giving reasons in the editing detail line. Your most recent reverting of my edits has minor explanation, but it does not match what you did and what you added. Why is it that you feel the name of the minister and a quote saying he is free, need to be at in the lead? Your edit explanation does not cover this. Further that information is repeated in much greater detail below.

Given mine an other issues with you believing you have ownership of Misplaced Pages articles, it seems your edits here are simply evidencing your belief. That the edits came from me seem to be the only thing which you had objection too. I hope this notification to you gives you pause. --Tombaker321 (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)