User talk:CliffordDorset
|
Your message[edit]
Several subjects which seemed not notable (see Wikipedia:Notability) or to lack reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources) or to have excessively long and irrelevant lists (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)) have had their encyclopaedic content merged and the article names redirected to an article of broader scope (see Wikipedia:Redirect). If an article redirects, you will see the name you initially typed in small print: click on that to get back to the original article, and click the "discussion" tab to see the talk page or the "history" tab to see what changes were made, and by whom. Does this help? A.K.Nole (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Follow-up. I've just seen your other message. Firstly, "your" articles have not been "deleted", that is a process requiring community agreement. If you don't like the changes that have been made, you can always change them back, or to yet another form. That's because Wikipedia is the encylopaedia that anyone can edit. However, by the same token, anyone else can edit your work too.
- Articles must be reliably sourced by secondary sources: books, scholarly articles or high-quality periodicals are examples. Wikipedia has a strong policy on articles about living people (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) and in particular states
- Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link
- and
- Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:
- 1. it is not unduly self-serving;
- 2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
- 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- 4. there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;
- 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
- Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects
- In some of these cases I have grave doubts as to whether the person in question exists at all, as opposed to being a "house name" of the publisher. Very reliable sources indeed will be needed to verify existence and notability. Does this all help? A.K.Nole (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- PS. So that the entire community can take part in the process, please discuss the edits to an individual article on the talk page for that article, such as Talk:Yolanda Celbridge. A.K.Nole (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The article Yolanda Celbridge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable person, unreferenced, not even clear that this is a real person
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- What's needed here is verifiable information from a reliable source about this person. Without that, the entry on her simply doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Yolanda Celbridge[edit]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Yolanda Celbridge, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yolanda Celbridge. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deor (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Re: Deletion[edit]
I'm sorry that you feel that Wikipedia has 'prissy' attitudes. I should point out that we have a Project for pornography, and a set of standards for articles on pornographic actors/actresses. It was more the notability that appears to have been at stake in the discussion. Or to be more exact, the lack of it. The only reference given was an interview at the Nexus site, which is now a dead link and would not have been regarded as an independent reliable source WP:RS. Please see WP:BLP about our requirements for referencing in the case of biographies of living persons. If Yolanda Celbridge is a 'living person' and not a house nom-de-plume, this must be adhered to. Otherwise, there should still be referencing to show the notability of the 'group person'. Some of these are notable, including the interesting case of Ellery Queen, and on a larger scale, the multiple person writing as Carolyn Keene. I realise that Yolanda Celbridge is unlikely to be the real name of a real individual; Irish place names are rarely the source of surnames, and people writing in markets such as pornography or romantic fiction may not want their real identities known. (I have only knowingly met one writer in either category, and he didn't write under his own name.) As to not knowing about the nomination, the notification was delivered to your userpage quite correctly, and the AfD discussions take a week normally. We cannot hold onto nominations in case the author happens to re-appear in the next year. If you feel that the deletion was not in accordance with our rules and policies, you can seek a review of the deletion. (Personal opinion is that there is not much hope, but you never know.) If you don't like our rules and policies, you could become a more regular editor and propose alterations. This is a community, and the community has made the rules and policies. (Well, as always, it was those interested in that side of things that did the work. I'm rather more front line than general staff...) Peridon (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, the use of abbreviations such as 'porn' or 'porno' is quite common when one does a lot of typing, as we do. I avoided using it above out of deference to your preferences. The policies I refer to have longer names, but when you are typing them as often as I do, I am not going to use those. Some of the shorter names can be amusing, such as WP:DUCK and WP:BEANS. Peridon (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Yet again I find myself baffled by the protocols of correspondence. Why isn't there a simple way of responding to yesterday's Peridon comments? I have no confidence that what I am now writing will reach Peridon, even though such a correspondence is the simplest routine for any other blog or chat part of the internet. What do you mean by 'pornography project'? I've looked at the (not very helpful) 'pornography' entry in Wiki, and have commented on what I see as its shortcomings, but 'project'? Do you really see no role for information such as I provided in my 'Yolanda Celbridge' proposed entry within Wiki. The phenomenon known under this apparent name may not be a biography, the supposed person may not exist, but there is still a phenomenon of that name. References? Well I have a collection of the relevant books ... what more should be needed? CliffordDorset (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Communication is facilitated by putting {{tb}} on the talk page of the user you wish to look here. As it happens, I check back when I see there has been activity on a page, or if I want to monitor it for longer I put it on my watchlist. The project I referred to is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. The problem with Yolanda isn't just existence, as Carolyn Keene demonstrates. There is a lot of coverage of those books in reliable independent sources. But not all books are notable. A cousin of mine reads exclusively Mills & Boon and Silhouette, and I've tried to read some I'd bought for her. They seem to sell, but I would hardly describe them as being of any note individually. The sole note is that of the publisher - who has plenty of coverage. I've also read some Black Lace and Nexus books out of curiosity, and to be quite honest, I found most of it boring too. (I also find most Christian hymns, European baroque and Indian classical music boring. Everyone to his/her/its own tastes.) If you can show coverage (possibly an inappropriate word in the connection of pornography and erotica....) in reliable independent sources, then the article can stand. Wikipedia is not censored (barring certain areas such as promoting paedophilia and so on). It might be an idea to visit the project - I don't think there is a project on erotica, and am also unsure of the dividing line, and of which classification Nexus fell into. (According to the article on Virgin Books - what an interesting name for the owners of Black Lace, Nexus, etc... - they stopped new issues in 2010. I don't know if this is a permanent change in policy - perhaps you could update it if incorrect now.) But you should look at WP:RS, without which there is little chance for the article. The books by themselves do not count towards notability - it is how much note has been taken of them or the author that counts. Peridon (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)