User:Trialsanderrors/AfD

Amy Loftus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Was nominated for speedy but a quick google suggested there might be notability; listing here for additional opinions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete weak Delete unless fleshed out very quickly. Clock is ticking. Hu 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Hu, did I not get the memo? The article was created only 2006-12-05T00:45:08 ! It needs to be marked as stub and allowed to grow! Is there now some policy that article must be full-length, fully referenced from day 0 ? Valters 09:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Apparently you didn't. You couldn't be bothered to even do so little as to stub it. I did. I also moved some material from its talk page into the article. Articles don't need to be "full-length, fully referenced from day 0" (though it is recommended and has been done), but biographical articles do need to clearly indicate the notability of the subject. That is the main part of the memo you seem to have missed. Hu 09:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Apparently I didn't. I don't care about Amy per se (I apologize for this discussion here), but I am at loss why Wikipedia should not to allow articles to incubate for a few days before nominating for deletion. Now only content of stub articles is going to be why that person is notable, and of little meaning (who that person is). Valters 10:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: After Morven thoughtfully added notability information to the article, I have changed my "vote" to "keep" because now the notability is properly asserted and referenced. So ironic that the deletionists saved the article and the inclusionists made no edits on it (see earlier discussion, which is posted below). Hu 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and Cleanup Notable enough, but this looks like it'll need a complete rewrite from the ground up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: Has received airplay on BBC Radio 2 by Bob Harris which is the only thing swaying me away from a Delete per WP:NMG - Bob is so highly regarded in the UK and I when I saw Amy Loftus I instantly thought of Bob. Dunno if she's any good though ;-) Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a stub, but about a seemingly notable person. Stubs are how many articles start. Let it expand, don't simply remove it. --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep DEFINETLY cleanup though. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO Sharkface217 03:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sharkface. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Heligoland made a clear assertion of her notability per WP:NMG in his comment above. Unless you can explain why this would be incorrect, I don't think your 'vote' should be counted. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• No reference, so the BBC airplay assertion counts as original research. Anyone can hire a producer to make a record. That doesn't make a person notable. The Songwriting Competition seems to be non-notable too, and being unsourced, is a dubious clami at this moment. Hu 13:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hu, playlist here (http://www.bobharris.org → Playlists → Country Show → January 19, 2006. Per http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/bobharriscountry/furtherinfo.shtml this is recognised by the BBC, should you be in doubt to the legitimacy of the website. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• The chances of the "keep" position succeeding would be enhanced if you or another supporter edited that information into the article. Hu 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• To keep up the oddness of things, I just added those references into the article. No sense in it being deleted just because nobody could be bothered to actually improve it. I can't find any references to the claimed acting (Tracey Takes On episode, etc) but an "Amy Loftus" is in IMDB with a credit on Playboy Video Centerfold: The Dahm Triplets. Bizarre indeed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but of course clean.--Meno25 06:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, stubby, yes, but definitely needs an urgent cleanup. Terence Ong 08:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep some notability but needs a good scrub.
• Delete - Delete unless sourced. Only assertion of notability is, "Positive reviews". Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - and source. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I am a little concerned about the notability but I think that if we can clean up and provide proper refs then we can definitly keep this article. — Seadog (Talk) 15:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: So many advocates for the article and yet not a single one has enhanced it, not even the "Strong Keep" or the article's creator, despite being notified. The only two people to enhance it proposed the deletion and voted for deletion. What a joke all these "keep" votes turn out to be! Hu 18:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil, Hu, this is not a helpful comment. hateless 20:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very mindful of being civil. I very carefully wrote that the votes were the joke, not the editors. I choose my words carefully and I always hope that people will read carefully. The comment did turn out to be helpful as it stimulated some positive edits on the article, which was one of my purposes in making the remark, and which none of the "keep" votes accomplished. Hu 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe its appropriate nor respectful to call other opinions "jokes" or to imply hypocrisy in other editors. Nor do I think editors should be taunted into editing. hateless 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is collectively that the votes were "a joke" (singular), and I pointed to the irony that the edits (and that they advanced the article) were not made by the defenders. If you read hypocrisy out of that, then I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. Hu 21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Hateless, but your argument doesn't hold water. Claiming Hu is being disrespectful by point out fact is not very civil either. The fact is there are people who will vote keep for an unsourced, non-notable, unwikified stub and yet will not fix it, expand it, or source it. It's not an accusation of hypocracy, it's a statement of fact. If someone thinks this article should be expanded, they should expand it, not expect others to do so. Otherwise, the keep vote is merely an empty gesture that should be discounted since it relies neither on policy nor on the intent to bring the article up to the standards that would meet policy. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't subscribe that there is a moral impetus to expand an article (afterall, we're all volunteers), and the idea that there should be social pressure that force people to do so is repugnant to me. Nor do I subscribe the idea that opinions can be automatically discounted on Wikipedia if WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF is not a factor. You also seem to miss the point of discussions and consensus if everything is as policy-driven as you claim it is (see WIkipedia is not a bureaucracy). Your tolerance of inflammatory language is also not something I agree on. To me, Hu was bullying (whatever his intentions were), and for you, I think you're wrong. hateless 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Voting for keeping an article in no way obligates one to work towards fixing and enhancing that article. We should vote keep if the given article covers a subject that is notable and verifiable, which apparently this is, although the article may be poorly written and poorly sources. A poorly done article on a notable and verifiable topic should be marked for cleanup, not deletion. --The Way 06:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, of course. The irony remains, nonetheless (as does the doubt on notability). I've been on the other side of the fence too, voting to keep an article and not having time or knowledge to improve it. And now this AfD has been vandalized.[1] Strange. Hu 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No independent evidence presented, in the the article or in this discussion, that Amy Loftus is yet a musician of any importance. The only sources cited are her website and an online store that sells nothing but CDs from small, independent musicians. Note the absence of any reviews from mainstream media.... indeed absence of any reviews at all. Amazon sales rank for her CD, "Straight to Amy," is #330,572 in Music. (As a quick reality check, another recent CD, "Exploration," published by an independent label, by two talented young folk singers neither of whom has or ought to have their own Wikipedia biography—Sarah Lee Guthrie and Johnny Irion—ranks 34,291). Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and if someone can be bothered to actually source the thing and show notability, then it can be recreated. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not seeing anything to meet the (admittedly guideline) WP:MUSIC, nor reliable sources about her, nor many google hits . Inner Earth 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I have sourced several of the statements made in the article and noted that she was Nashville Scene magazine's "Best New Singer/Songwriter" in 2005. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Mukadderat 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — per new references added by Matthew Dionyseus 01:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Deleted references to subjects website as they are not valid citations. Now, we have two left to consider. One, she is the subject of a writer's choice award, I can think of high school students who have recieved similiar awards who are known only by their family and friends. The second item, the 3rd place in one of many categories in the International Songwriter Competition, does not do it for me either. I have no idea how prominent that ISC competition is in the music industry, but it didn't appear that professional to me by reviewing their web site. Therefore I support DELETE based on lack of Verifiablity and Biography NotabilityAlan.ca 09:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Self-published sources are not acceptable to establish notability BUT are acceptable sources of non-controversial biographical detail. I have thus reverted your changes to the article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)