User talk:Fantasia 15

I oppose this deletion. It may need some HTML adjustments, but beyond that, all of the information inthis article are true and correct.

Veracity isn't the issue, notability is. However, you'll make more headway if you make your argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevanna Jackson (2nd nomination).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fabrictramp,

Although, your point is well taken, I feel compelled to point out that notability is open to many different interpetations ... what you may consider notable, I may not consider notable or remarkable, thus Notability is and can be construed as subjective. Under the articles for deletion, one should not base their opinion on their own personal biases or preferences ... which undoubtedly makes a tremendous amount of other articles on Wikipedia trivial & indiscriminate.

Wikipedia has a standard for notability, which you can read at WP:Notability and WP:BIO. These are not my personal standards, but the consensus of many thousands of editors. If you disagree with those standards, the place to take it up is on those talk pages.

As to "why the other hosts from The Disney movie surfers are notable enough to have their own wiki", WP:OTHERSTUFF might be an instructive read.

As I said above, the place to make your arguments for keeping the article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevanna Jackson (2nd nomination). I'd suggest you read WP:BIO first so you can make the strongest possible argument there. I would be thrilled if you can show how this article meets (or can be made to meet) the requirements of WP:BIO -- Wikipedia is better when we have quality, well-written, sourced articles that meet the guidelines. But please make that argument at the correct place.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevanna Jackson (2nd nomination), you will be blocked from editing. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight!!! You deleted the article the first time, and you nominated it for deletion a second time, but when I re-wrote it, I can't delete it, because you want to delete it yourself? Do you edit for Wackypedia or Wikipedia?

Fabrictramp is referring to your blanking of the deletion discussion page for the Stevanna Jackson article, not the article itself. Blanking the deletion discussion page is a disruption of Wikipedia process. —Bkell (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Stevanna Jackson

A tag has been placed on Stevanna Jackson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Stevanna Jackson

Yeah, I know what Harvard is, thanks. But just going to a selective school doesn't automatically make someone notable. There aren't Wikipedia articles for every single person who went to Harvard. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is entirely cherry picking. Sure, lots of notable individuals come out of Harvard, but also lots of people come out of Harvard and don't do anything notable in their lives. On the same note, lots of more notable people come from community colleges, or never go to college. Being accepted to Harvard may be an "honor," but it doesn't automatically make someone worthy of a Wikipedia article. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "WP is not about self reflection or whether someone became notable..."

Um, actually, WP is all about whether someone became notable. If you haven't noticed, that's what the whole Jackson discussion has been revolving around. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to User:Suntag has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for the message you left for Suntag...

I moved it to his talk page; you had left the message on his User page. User pages are generally only edited by the user who they belong to; messages for the user are left on their talk pages.

That being said, I humbly ask that you not spam the users who are involved in your Jackson deletion discussion. It seems that you have just gone through the deletion discussion and left a message for every user who participated in it. All of those users are watching the discussion and can see comments there if you want to make more comments; it's somewhat impolite to go to all of their talk pages and harangue them, especially with comments like "whether you like it or not!" —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stevanna Jackson

I honestly do not know the answer to your question, but I have tried to reason with a few editors. Maybe it just got too emotional, because they felt that I am making them wrong, somehow. If thats what happened, that was not my intention. I was only pointing out that the article fits perfectly fine within the guidelines of WP. However, because I am new to this, they could sense that I could be pushed around a bit.--Fantasia 15 (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you understood what I was asking. You were able to read the steps to list a deletion review but you ignored the first step, which was "please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)". I would like to know why you did that.

Also, for your own reference, you should only put [[ and ]] around a word if you want it to link to another page. If you want to emphasize something, use '' and '' on either side, which brings it out in italics. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Politizer. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like the most reasonable one, I thank you, however, politizer sounded like a child when he called me "impolite". Why don't ask to see why they (whoever) did a speedy deletion of the article with out any discussion about it? I did what Fabrictramp told me to do, based on the info he gave. In any case, I don't care anymore. On Wikipedia there is so much misinformation, misspelling, and inaccurate information that its pathetic. I asked a few people their opinion of WP, and the feedback was negative. If WP continues on the same path as its been, it is doomed to failure. It won't a relevent, reliable source of collective information anymore.--Fantasia 15 (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]