This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xoloz (talk | contribs) at 15:51, 21 August 2006 (→[]: closing (del. endorsed)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:51, 21 August 2006 by Xoloz (talk | contribs) (→[]: closing (del. endorsed))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| < August 15 | August 17 > |
|---|
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)
16 August 2006
Stephen Goodfellow
The posting of this individual ought to be reinstated.
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 dismissedby the initial critic.
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.
Please consider reinstating, or if the article deleted, allow reposting.
Esteban 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. · rodii · 18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry it's habit.
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 Tribes of the Cass Corridor, Belle Isle Aquarium or Highland Park, MI Online Block Clubs. 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?
Esteban 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.) Geogre 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?
Esteban 13:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what "previous article" means, but it seems userfiable. AfD was valid. ~ trialsanderrors 15:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
TrialsandErrors, Your The 5-10 rule - 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 weird results as well. I love the web.
Esteban 06:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- If the copyright tags on Image:Macropointillism.jpg and others are correct then you are either the subject or connected to the subject. Writing articles about yourself or individuals with whom you are connected is a bad idea. 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 vanispamcruftisement, AfD was valid per process and per policy. Just zis Guy you know? 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.
• 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?
• The name Stephen Goodfellow is synonymous with the web archiving of Cass Corridor history. To not give a description of the author seems, well silly.
However, I do see the perceived conflict
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 Diane Sybeldon, Public Services Librarian for Wayne State University, if she will do the honors. Would this satisfy?
Esteban 16:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- It rather depends on whether she has any material connection to the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 22:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, valid AfD and no convincing reason given to overturn it. --Sam Blanning 10:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Shelby Belle
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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.211.68.206 (talk • contribs) of 16.08.06
- It is always helpful if one signs. And, all porn stars are not notable to conform to WP:BIO. --Bhadani 08:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Does she meet the proposed guideline WP:PORN BIO (or even come close)? If so she should be undeleted, if not there is no reason to. Eluchil404 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. Fan-1967 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion: The content was as follows: "Shelby Belle (born July 22, 1983 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada) 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. Geogre 20:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I was close. IMO the hotness would have been better than the Montrealness. Fan-1967 20:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sometimes reminded of the SCTV parody of CBC: "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. Geogre 02:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- But did it have the answer to the eternal question: "Natural bust: yes/no" ? -- Fan-1967 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. Geogre 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. Fan-1967 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. ~ trialsanderrors 07:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Koumpounophobia
This article was created on 4 July 2006 and recently deleted by Mikkalai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 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. -phob-#Phobia_lists may have bearing. Maybe it's completely a hoax but I did get a fair number of ghits. He has been notified. I take no position myself. ++Lar: t/c 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. ~ trialsanderrors 00:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)