User talk:Epbr123
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Wikipediarules2221 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Long speech
I put a long speech on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:Epbr123_blanking on the theory that you won't delete it there, and everyone will get a chance to see it. Please read it. It's important. I do think you are well meaning, but a lot of people don't, and in the end community consensus is what drives this thing. It is as important to convince people that you mean well as to actually mean well. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability confusion
In several AfDs, you write "Notable porn stars tend to have made over 100 movies." That's not a correct interpretation; making 100 movies was once rare enough to be notable, but it was never a requirement. Probably the most glaring counter-example is Bambi Woods, who made all of 2(!) movies and is quite notable, because one of them was Debbie Does Dallas. Linda Lovelace is also highly notable and didn't make many films. Of course 100 films is now debatable, partly because of such misunderstandings. Not meeting a specific one of several criteria isn't a deletion reason. That's like arguing that George Bush isn't notable because he never won a Nobel Prize. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't using the number of films as a reason to delete. I was just countering Dekkappai, Disavian and LaMenta3's usual arguments that articles should be kept due to the number of films made. The articles I nominated didn't appear to pass any criteria. Epbr123 21:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- [1] "76 movies ... which is very low": I wouldn't say that. It's not unusually high enough to be notable, but it's hardly low. The average person walking down the street has not performed in 76 porn films! Note that I haven't done a thorough research of it yet, so I'm not opining one way or another on the article as such, just that argument isn't right. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I said its low for porn star standards. Epbr123 21:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I understand, but we don't have any reference on porn star standards (unless you know of one, in which case I would be very glad to see it, it would be very useful). The "100 film" rule was a reasonably bright line for "unusually prolific actresses", but it said nothing about what "porn star standards" were. For example, we have a category, Category:People_over_eight_feet_tall. If you know of a person over 8 feet tall, they almost certainly qualify for a Wikipedia article. They're very rare, and people will write books and articles about them merely because of their height, even if they don't do a single other notable thing in their lives. Someone merely 6 feet 8 inches tall isn't that unusual, they won't get a Wikipedia article merely because of that - but they aren't short! Even for basketball players, they aren't short. Same for someone with 76, or even 48 porn films. If they made fewer than 10 total, maybe you could say that isn't much of a career, but Jenna Jameson, for example, was quite notable before she had 48 films, and for several years did 5 per year without being considered inactive. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're right but on the other hand, other people shouldn't claim someone is notable because of the amount of movies or magazines they've appeared in. Epbr123 23:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I understand, but we don't have any reference on porn star standards (unless you know of one, in which case I would be very glad to see it, it would be very useful). The "100 film" rule was a reasonably bright line for "unusually prolific actresses", but it said nothing about what "porn star standards" were. For example, we have a category, Category:People_over_eight_feet_tall. If you know of a person over 8 feet tall, they almost certainly qualify for a Wikipedia article. They're very rare, and people will write books and articles about them merely because of their height, even if they don't do a single other notable thing in their lives. Someone merely 6 feet 8 inches tall isn't that unusual, they won't get a Wikipedia article merely because of that - but they aren't short! Even for basketball players, they aren't short. Same for someone with 76, or even 48 porn films. If they made fewer than 10 total, maybe you could say that isn't much of a career, but Jenna Jameson, for example, was quite notable before she had 48 films, and for several years did 5 per year without being considered inactive. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I said its low for porn star standards. Epbr123 21:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- [1] "76 movies ... which is very low": I wouldn't say that. It's not unusually high enough to be notable, but it's hardly low. The average person walking down the street has not performed in 76 porn films! Note that I haven't done a thorough research of it yet, so I'm not opining one way or another on the article as such, just that argument isn't right. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Slow up!
I'll agree with you in that some of the articles are about non-notable actresses and should probably be deleted. Unfortunately, that way you're doing it definately raises hackles and you're not making friends this way. After all you've put up 12 articles up for AFD today... that's definately gonna tick people off. I would strongly suggest you slow up the pace of the AFDs. Why not tag the suspect articles with {{notability}} tags instead? If you take a look at the Skyy Black (porn star) article, it already had such a tag on it before your AFD. Tabercil 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] David Howell (footballer)
You nominated this article for deletion. Now that the article has been expanded, it is clear that he meets the terms of WP:BIO. Would you like to re-consider your nomination? Thanks. Daemonic Kangaroo 18:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Summaries
--Mel Etitis (Talk) 06:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and slowing down with the deletions. We didn't get along for a while, but I think we've gotten past all of that mess. Have a good day! :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar - it's good to be noticed. So many article to write/improve; so little time! Daemonic Kangaroo 16:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
