This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WoodstockEarth (talk | contribs) at 10:50, 30 November 2012 (→Eleanor Leonne Bennett). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:50, 30 November 2012 by WoodstockEarth (talk | contribs) (→Eleanor Leonne Bennett)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Eleanor Leonne Bennett
- Eleanor Leonne Bennett (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)
Contested PROD. The article fails WP:GNG; None of the sources establish any notability for the article's subject; the article's references are all either WordPress blogs or other self published sources, or are primary sources. SudoGhost 08:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello all,
Thanks for opening this discussion. Unfortunately I am away for a few days but will be back on Wednesday 5th Decemeber, when I will fully address all issues. Many thanks. AndreaUKA (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you need time to address the notability issues, I would suggest userfying the article, and addressing the issues before moving it to the mainspace. - SudoGhost 09:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would also caution you about removing templates before actually resolving the issues. If you plan on fixing them then that's all well and good, but the template is there for a reason. Removing it prematurely doesn't actually solve any of the issues or prevent anyone from nominating it for deletion, as you can see. There's no rule specifically against it, but removing it without showing notability via RS doesn't really look good for the article, partially because in the past most of the people who remove them never actually improve it. In the meantime, if notability cannot be established for this person, we'll take your statement as you being willing to userfy it if it is deleted before you return to Misplaced Pages.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I was informed that removing a template was not infra dig and it was not even necessary to explain why although I had the courtesy to do so. I will be back next week and would be grateful for some understanding. I have been editing Misplaced Pages for many years and do understand the basics. AndreaUKA (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not entirely necessary for you to have to explain, but you've got to understand that removing a template solves nothing and most of the time it doesn't really reflect well on the article if it's done without any improvements to the page. I've removed a lot of the stuff on the article, as most of the sources are completely unusable for sourcing notability. Most of the book and magazine covers are for ones that are not notable by Misplaced Pages's standards. The books appear to be entirely self-published and the magazines are predominantly the type that are self-released. Indie and self-released doesn't have to mean unusable and non-notable, but that's the case in 99.9% of most situations. The only notable magazine out of the bunch was Neon magazine, which I moved up to the lead. Even if you've been editing for a while, you've got to be careful about sources. You can put a ton on there, but if they aren't considered to be reliable or a trivial source then they don't really do much for the article as a whole. I also saw that most of the article was unsourced, which I removed as well. It's sort of original research, especially since most of what I was able to find doesn't really mention a lot of what was put in the article. That's why the WP:OR tag was probably placed on the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
My god, you've removed practically the entire article! Surely you could have waited until I got back? How bloody arrogant. No wonder many WIKI article writers and editors give up. I shall probably end up doing the same, despite writing and editing since 2005 (or thereabouts). I think my donations might possibly dry up too. Unbelievable arrogance. AndreaUKA (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)