Talk:Amelia Milka Sablich
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Untitled
[edit]This article was nomiated for deletion, and discused at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flaming Milka. The discusion was closed as a deleted, but the article was later undeleted. DES (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand why this article was undeleted. It provides absolutely no explanation to why this "Falming Milka" person was notable. Ok, I understand, there was strikes and stuff - but why did *she* become known? Was she the only woman striker? Was she interviewed by some newspaper by chance and became famous? And, what did her becoming famous entail? Newspaper articles? What finally happened to her? All in all, this article confuses more than it explains :( Nyh 14:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Er, doesn't "becoming a familiar personality throughout the United States", and "she toured the country giving speeches" suggest notability. And don't the References suggest that it is, and can be, verified. I agree that the writing is somewhat confusing, and probably should be clarified and made slightly more neutral in tone, but the notability and verifiablity doesn't seem to be an issue. JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Let me give you an example of why I can't understand this article. Imagine a Michael Jackson article, that instead of starting with a description of his music career and his hit songs, has instead only several paragraphs saying that he was one of many pedophiles of his era and had a very public trial. You would read this article, and ask yourself - well, then, why write an article about this person, rather than a general article about pedophilia or TV & trials or whatever? Ok, then, don't delete this article, but it needs a serious reorganization (at least) Nyh 18:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- That does make sense; and possibily merging this article into an article on the coal strike that she was part of would be a good idea (if and when such an article is written). Thanks for explaing further. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with the suggestion that she is not notable. Her notability is verified by the numerous newspaper articles and editorials written about her activities, and her successes in convincing miners to lay down their tools by the hundreds. Richard Myers (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- That does make sense; and possibily merging this article into an article on the coal strike that she was part of would be a good idea (if and when such an article is written). Thanks for explaing further. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Let me give you an example of why I can't understand this article. Imagine a Michael Jackson article, that instead of starting with a description of his music career and his hit songs, has instead only several paragraphs saying that he was one of many pedophiles of his era and had a very public trial. You would read this article, and ask yourself - well, then, why write an article about this person, rather than a general article about pedophilia or TV & trials or whatever? Ok, then, don't delete this article, but it needs a serious reorganization (at least) Nyh 18:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
possible bad link
[edit]The "Wobbling" link from Time Magazine appears to not work. It failed on December 15, 2009. If it continues to fail, it needs to be either fixed, or removed. Richard Myers (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)