DanWOrr

Welcome! edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, DanWOrr, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Ashley.renee.jones, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Ashley.renee.jones edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ashley.renee.jones requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. —C.Fred (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The speed at which you marked this page for speedy deletion indicates it was most likely done by a BOT and not a real person. That is a significant conflict of interest to the public since no BOT can accurately monitor local printed circulations or even every facebook, twitter and orchid accounts which might weigh in the substance and notability of the actress. (copied from User talk:C.Fred)

First, it was tagged by a human, not a bot. There's a report that shows edits by new users; that's where I saw. Second, the only conflict of interest I see is that you're trying to create an article on behalf of the subject, based on the comments in the images you upload that indicate the images were given to you by the subject. Third, Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks are not reliable sources. Fourth, she would need to have been covered in national-scope publications. A write-up in the News and Observer is not enough to show she's significant or important. Finally, which items(s) from WP:NACTOR do you think she satisfies, and what reliable sources support those claims? —C.Fred (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

WP:NACTOR certainly proves the page should not have been deleted. Significant Roles in multiple Roles, check. Large Fan base? What is the criteria for large? Significant Cult following? Again Significant has a numerical value or a cultural definition? She has a few hundred fans and that's more people than other cults with infamous notoriety. Prolific contributions. How many contributions do you have to be in to be considered Prolific? And let me be clear, this isn't a pissing contest. This is wanting to know the criteria for creating a page. I would agree, arguably and sarcastically, that anything the News and Observer choose to write about would be biased, tainted and usually not worth printing. A periodical I am familiar with as a native Carolinian and NC State Graduate too.

Entertainers

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Finally, this person is Notable Enough to be included in the Independent Movie Database or IMDB.com which is a global news credited source of reliable information.

And since you circumvented the seven day discussion for challenging an immediate deletion then that shows you are over zealous and if you would save the effort of reading all this (and I will) point me to the appeals process for your decision. From A7 it says : If the claim of significance is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied, even if the claim does not meet the notability guidelines. Topics that seemed non-notable to new page patrollers have often been shown to be notable in deletion discussions.

So simply because the arts and artists are not important to a new page patroller, doesn't make them A7 immediate Deletion and the Deletion Discussion should have been applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanWOrr (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 February 2016‎

Dear Dan, I can totally understand that it feels bad that the text you contributed again to Ashley Renee Jones has been deleted. Please try to understand, that the volunteers who decided to do so are well experienced Wikipedians, and that all Wikipedians are here because they want Wikipedia to grow! When content is removed it is most times done for very good reasons. Please take some time to read and try to understand the Wikipedia guidelines and the Wikipedian community and how they work. Some links that can really help you:

Please sign your messages on talk pages by typing --~~~~ at the end.

Please go to Wikimedia Commons and fix your uploads there, they are all missing the required license permission by their creators. --92.225.152.32 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear IP address, Thanks for your input although defending an action is not escalating. Providing sources, guidelines, laws and interpretations is meaningful dialogue not a logic fallacy.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people Understanding Copyrighted Material is always a little ambiguous but having read the aforementioned common criteria, that criteria was met such that :"The subject's consent is usually needed for publishing a photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a private place, and Commons expects this even if local laws do not require it. In many countries (especially :English-speaking ones) the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place."

Therefor a picture taken of a performance in a public place of a identifiable person and not used for commercial purposes doesn't even need the subject's permission but I went and got it anyway. The idea of creator ownership :is also flawed since giving a photograph away indicates public distribution and does not prevent non-commercial redistribution. The request to remove from the commons is unfounded since copyright is not infringed upon but :overly and abundantly protected.(talk)DanWOrr 05 February 2016 DanWOrr (talk)DanWOrr

Dear Dan, could you please tell us the names of the photographers who took the pictures and the name of the audio engingeer who recorded the sound file? --92.225.152.32 (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Sound Engineer most likely since his name is listed on this playbill. I will shoot him an email. The Photographs were given to me by their owner but I can ask her who gave them to her originally. I expect she would know. :Again, I will make this effort despite the criteria "subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place."

As an example, Wikipedia has a page for Amanda Peterson whose best known role is as Cindy Mancini from Can't Buy Me Love. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Peterson There was nothing notable about her career and she was :all but forgotten until she died of a drug overdose last year at the age of 43. How is it that this perceived criteria of A7 did not preclude her mention? She had a cult following? Or she was just a name to attach to a drug :related demise?

The experienced wikipedian uses personal bias instead of the actual A7 criteria which seems has occurred before with other new pages since the A7 has in it the following statement, "If the claim of significance is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied, even if the claim does not meet the notability guidelines. Topics that seemed non-notable to new page patrollers have often been shown to be notable in deletion discussions."

Is there some wikipedia form the sound engineer will need to submit?

DanWOrr (talk)DanWOrr

Add topic