Talk:Donna Ladd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Segregation[edit]

Racially segregated? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't legal segregation outlawed in the South in the 1960's? I understand that there are still predominently 'black' neighborhoods and predominently 'white' neighborhoods, but the way this was phrased suggested that Jackson in still living in 1960 under Jim Crow. And without sources to back the assertions regarding racially segregation and white supremacy/black separatists, these are POV statements. Further, the way the section was phrased appeared to be an endorsement of the paper's credibility over the other local alternatives based solely on race, which is also not NPOV. I don't object to the statements if they can be backed up with cited references and a more NPOV tone.

Independent verifiable sourcing not provided since March 2007[edit]

Independently verifiable information has been not be provided since March 2007 to support the readership and website page view claims. The Wiki of the Jackson Free Press makes no such claims only making reference to an approximation of 16,000 readers. The AAN entry for the JFP lists the 16,000 reader claim but indicates that the newspaper circulation is not audited. The JFP website does not have a visible counter. In fact JFP website indicates that known problems exist with statistical accuracy by noting that its counter measuring visits over a 12 minute rolling period randomly resets and is unreliable. The references to readership and page views are removed pending the availability of independently verifiable sourcing.

Response: Actually the Jackson Free Press does not claim a "readership" of 16,000. It claims an accurate and verifiable (if not with a URL) print run ("ciruclation") of a 17,000 (which increased from 16,000 since spring 2007). That figure means just the number of papers *published* each week. The "readership" is actually much higher and growing (currently near 50,000), as national Media Audit surveys show on an annual basis. The larger number is because such surveys as Media Audit reveal the "multiplier" of how many many people typically read each copy of a publication, as people inside the media industry understand. The average multiplier is around 2.3 for most newspaper; the JFP's is higher than average, probably because many of the most popular racks and boxes are empty within three days of publication, meaning that a good number of people must read the same copy (such as in coffee shops, bars, restaurants and in family homes).

All of this is verifiable information and makes sense to those familiar with how media audits/controlled circulation works.

As for claims about the "counter" on the Web site, there are much more reliable ways these days to monitor site usage, as many Wikipedia readers are likely aware of.

Response: All great puffery but still unverifiable claims of readership and page views. If there are external sources to verify please provide links.

Notability issue, indeed[edit]

I stumbled on this page via the Miss. State Univ. page ... Donna Ladd has a Wikipedia page? GMAFB. She edits a free weekly "listings" paper with delusions of journalistic grandeur; unless everyone in the U.S. is entitled to his or her own Wikipedia article, then it's inexplicable why Ladd would have one. --Andersonblog 13:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Donna Ladd is not notable. 75.144.57.74 (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She.Is.Not.Notable.At.All.(66.249.165.130 (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Jack1319 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)== References in article ==[reply]

If this article is gonna be left with embedded citations, then somebody's gonna have to go through and create full references for all of them as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC) I live in Jackson and her articles are boastful of her so called accomplishments. She is not recognized or even known to most journalists in Mississippi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1319 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion[edit]

I see that this article has been nominated for deletion by User:One2knowms. As of the writing of this (a couple of hours after this article was nominated), the afore-mentioned user's only edits have been to nominate this article for deletion. As the wording of the reason given...

It's obvious this was written by the subject of the article or someone close to her simply to toot her own horn. She is not notable outside of her circle. This seems an abuse of the neutrality/informational standards that govern Wikipedia.

... would appear to be non-neutral, I will drop an invite on User:One2knowms talk page and ask them to justify here why this article should be deleted.

My personal point of view here (as someone who knows nothing about Donna Ladd) is that without proper justification for deletion, this article should not be deleted. It had already been noted on the article about probably conflict of interest, but as so many different people have contributed over the last couple of years, I would question whether that tag is still valid. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you object, you just do what the Prod notice says, remove it. Prods aren't the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD) which can't be removed. I've removed it and if the user puts it back, it goes to ANI. While I strongly agree with the user that Donna Ladd isn't notable outside Jackson, Mississippi, the user having no other history than Prod-ing this article for deletion would be the cause of it not being deleted even if it did go to AfD. If anything, much of the information in this article should be merged into the Jackson Free Press article. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I wasn't so much as objecting the the nomination for deletion (if there was a valid reason for removal, then it should be deleted), but something did not seem quite right here. Whilst I was scanning the new user accounts to welcome newbies, I saw that User:one2knowms appeared, nominated, and cleared off. I waited a couple of hours, to see if any further edits would come, but none arrived. I thought that was wrong, and decided to step in and get some activity here, as it would be a shame that it be deleted without a proper discussion.
I have also removed the notability tag - this was also added by the same user. Checking the page history, there has been one in the past, and it was removed back in September 2007. StephenBuxton (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Donna Ladd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Donna Ladd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donna_Ladd&oldid=1208074312"