Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:10, 5 September 2014

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 September 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

Biography C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

United Kingdom Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lebanon Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

AfC comments

• Comment: The basic notability standard for a visual artist is having their work in the permanent collection of major museums, or being the subject of substantial criticism or academic discussion, or winning a major award . None of these are the case here.The references are not about her art, but about aspects of her personal life. That's tabloid material, and the relevant policy is that WP is not a tabloid. It is possible for a really important society figure to be "notable for being notable:, but this is a rare exception and requires much more than the relatively small amount of material here. The usual criterion for accepting an AfC is a reasonable likelihood of passing AfD. Some define it at 51%. I prefer to use a higher level, like 66%. Biut its irrelevant here, because several discussions at afd have shown thatthis article is not going to be accepted there. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The Amanda Eliasch article has been speedy deleted a number of times for a variety of reasons (most recently for no particular reason than it was poorly written and had been deleted before). Because I accepted the previous article from AfC (it seemed to show clearly Eliasch had been widely written about) I think it makes sense to let another uninvolved reviewer to make a decision this time round. I've tried to rescue some info and sources from the Google cached version of the previous article. Sionk (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I left the following comment at 69.22.228.31's talk page and am reposting it here. Concurring that the argument for WP:CREATIVE is pretty thin, I nonetheless thought there was a decent case for meeting WP:BASIC. If this were in AfD, I think I would have voted to Keep on that basis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm retaining these comments from the draft article when it was at AfC. It was recreated at AfC to address the alleged promotional nature of previous versions of the article. Despite being rewritten, using multiple in-depth sources over a 15 year period, and a non-aligned review requested, it was reviewed and declined by an admin who had previously speedy deleted a version of the article. In my view as a long standing AfC reviewer Eliasch meets WP:GNG and, if anyone disgrees, let's have a full AfD discussion with an impartial closing admin. Article is no-longer promotional and cites several claims to notability, therefore is no longer a speedy deletion candidate. Sionk (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Further comments

I think I will not send the article to afd at the moment, though if anyone else does I am unlikely to !vote to keep it in its present form. it is possible that she is notable for the film and the photography. (I added a brief notice of the photography published in a reliable professional journal on the basis of the worldcat listing for the review--I have not yet actually seen the review, but the title is helpful.) However, based on the sources cited the the article, the sequence given for her book, theatre work, and film is in that order--the film is based on the play which is in turn based on the poetry.

However, the personal information in the article is excessive, and fails our policy NOT TABLOID. It isn't a BLP violation--based on the sources, she is apparently very anxious to publicize this material herself. Besides NOT TABLOID, a good case could be made for removing much of it as self-promotion. Doing so would in my opinion strengthen the article against deletion. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I also just now added a record for a published book of her photographs. It continues to amaze me how hundreds of edits can nonetheless ignore the material that is most likely to show importance, while going into great detail about gossip. For anyone who has published anything, the first place to look is WorldCat. </ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 07:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC+9

Contested deletion

This article has been supported some of the best editors and only taken down because of the way it was written. The editor registered today again the claim that the page should be deleted. Why is it so under attack? There seems to be no reason. I checked and the page was up for seven years before. Is this vandalism? Perhaps they are anti pretty women who are clever? What do we do to protect the article? Spikequeen (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)spikequeenSpikequeen (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a credible artist and writer in the United Kingdom, I think her work should be respected by the users, I think the article is continually subjected to Vandalism. This page is not unambiguously promotional, because she is a credible artist, with notable works and recognition. The article seems to continually subjected to vandalism. The article adheres to the rules of Misplaced Pages. This time put in jeopardy by no credited editor--Spikequeen (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Arthur goes shopping for your advice on this page. Glad you think it is worthy to be on Misplaced Pages. I will listen to your advice and check the other artists/filmmakers too. If you can help I would be most grateful. Spikequeen (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd add to the above, I fail to understand why this article is under continual attack. It makes clear claims of notability, therefore is definitely not a speedy deletion candidate. The author that added the speedy seems to have registered today with the sole intention of deleting the article. Past history or personal grudge? Sionk (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I just wanted to drop a friendly reminder that an AfD is now open. Irregardless of what we might think about its merits or lack thereof, until it is closed that's where all discussion concerning keeping or deleting this article should be occurring in order to avoid any question of possible canvassing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ignore my above comment. The AfD was being closed even as I was typing it. Sometimes common sense does triumph on here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Undid speedy keep closure

I undid the speedy keep closure for the following reasons:

• Although Davey does mention SPAs, he also does not mention the at least two SPAs voting to !keep in that instance, and without their !votes, it would reach as no consensus. Due to the SPA nature, it should go for the full 7 days and be decided by an administrator.
• His vote also seems to be a supervote as well, closing the discussion early and making a keep argument in that effect.
• It is not one of the reasons at WP:KEEP to speedy keep this article.

Let it run for the full time (7 days) and assessed by an administrators so this time it will be permanent. Tutelary (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I 100% disagree with you but it's not worth edit warring and getting blocked over, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Point 2 of WP:KEEP seems to apply. I still fail to see why there is so much animosity towards this particular article. But considering the bitter past history of continuous speedy deletions it will do no harm for it to go 'full term' to put the argument to rest. Sionk (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United Kingdom articles
• Unknown-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• Unassessed Lebanon articles
• Unknown-importance Lebanon articles
• WikiProject Lebanon articles