User talk:Cyber69surfer
New message from Kudpung
[edit]
Message added 06:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Alice Little
[edit]Hi, just regarding your recent comments at the relevant AfD, you don't need to feel bad - nothing you have done to the page will influence the decision about whether or not to delete it. You can read more about the deletion policy [[WP:Delection policy|here}] - the argument I have made is that the subject does not pass the notability requirements. All editors voting in the discussion will have independently searched for better sources before coming to their own view about whether she is notable according to our guidelines, your edits to the page won't affect that.
FWIW though, regarding your comments about the subject editing the page - that would be strictly prohibited per WP:COI, nobody should write about themselves or edit a page about themselves. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Kudpung
[edit]Thank you for the support of everyone who reassured me that this was not my fault. It was really stressing me out to think I played a role in putting this article on the block. Honestly, I am as much of a greenhorn as they come with regards to Wikipedia. I have read articles before, but this is my first venture editing one. Having that said, and despite all the drama...and believe me, there has been drama. If I may cast a vote as the junior man to give the article another chance. At the bottom of the page I noticed the Relevant Articles. I presume that they met the notability requirements that you say the Alice Little article lacks. I think perhaps that with some fine tuning this article is a natural extension of the other Relevant Articles already accepted by Wikipedia. I'm not sure if my experience or knowledge is quite up to the task, but I'm willing to do what I can to make this article meet those guidelines. Alice has done many interviews both written and recorded over the past three years. Would they meet the requirements of third party references? For example, the Tim Ferriss Show currently cited. I understand that anything that is something that she personally wrote cannot be used. However, you may find as I have that you get the same information from pretty much every publication out there. It's like everyone just asks the same questions. My next argument to keep the article is that Alice still has a big role to play in shaping the future of the sex work world. I myself have told her she is the sex worker for the 21st century. You may have read the edits I included that mentioned her advocacy for rights and her humanity fighting sex trafficking. I added those things because I felt the article needed some heart. You are correct, the original was drab and kind of resembled a sales pitch. But that becomes a fine line when writing these kinds of articles. As an entrepreneur you just can't separate what she does from who she is because they are both one person. I'm sure there are plenty of articles that walk that same line. Thank you for allowing me to be part of this process. I've enjoyed learning about Wikipedia and the value of your mission to share information. Cyber69surfer (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Cyber69surfer. Anyone, including yourself, is welcome to !vote at the AfD discussion, but do be aware that it is not really a vote - the discussion closer will weigh the strength of the arguments, in terms of how they relate to Wikipedia's policies and guidlines, rather than simply counting the number of votes one way or the other. If you don't present sound a policy-based argument on why the article shouldn't be deleted, your vote will not count for much.
- If you really want the article to be retained, the best thing you can do is find a couple of reliably-published, secondary, independent sources that discuss her in detail. To expand on that - this guidelines talks about the reliability of sources. A secondary means that it is at least one step removed from the subject - interviews are generally considered primary sources, so don't establish notability. Independent means that she is not connected in any way to the publication. Significant coverage is probably the most subjective of these requirements - but basically, the article should be about her, rather than mentioning her in an article about something else like a campaign she's involved in. If you can find some sources like that, you may be able to sway the argument - I looked for some before nominating, but I didn't find any. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)