Talk:Janelle Pierzina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and Janelle Pierzina has been identified as one of these articles. Anybody can help the WikiProject by trying to improve existing articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.


Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 1 September 2005. The result of the discussion was redirect to Big Brother (USA TV series).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 10 September 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] mistaken afd process

The afd had no consensus. I realize some "keep" votes were tossed, as they were anons, but there was not sufficient majority for re-direct. --rob 00:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

As the closing admin, I have to disagree. Standard operating procedure is to discount the votes of inexperienced users, as per this section of the deletion guidelines. The bar for that is generally 300 edits.
I disallowed the following votes due to lack of edits: Peeper/User:Pperos (less than 200 edits at time of vote), User:Firedrake (less than 20 edits at time of vote), User:66.149.92.242 (less than 20 edits at time of vote), User:OldRight (less than 200 edits at time of vote), User:Gian89 (less than 300 edits at time of vote) and User:PatadyBag (less than 100 edits at time of vote).
I disallowed User:Youngamerican's vote as he supplied no rationale for his vote. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion explicitly states: Votes without rationales may be discounted. I always disallow votes that have no rationale whatsoever.
My interpretation of Paul99's vote reads as a weak keep or redirect.
So, we are left with 5 votes to keep, of which one is a weak keep, 9 votes to redirect and 3 votes to delete, including Zoe's nomination. I interpreted this as a rough consensus to redirect, and I still do having revisited it now.
I assure you that I have never seen Big Brother and that I have no vested interest at all in the outcome of this AfD; I am simply making what I think is the most rational decision. I'm more than happy to entertain any further questions you may have. --Fernando Rizo T/C 00:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


    • As a new user, let me just thank you for letting me know just how useless you feel my opinions are here. Not much incentive to do articles when one admin can decide it's not important enough and put it up and another will push through that decision. Just makes new users leave and entrenches the old school. What a crock.--Firedrake 02:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia

I've reverted Fernando Rizo's deletion because it makes no sense for Wikipedia to have an article on Ashlea Evans who was in the house for only 12 days and on only three episodes and no article on Janelle Pierzina who has been in there for over two months, won a bunch of prizes and is the favorite of most of the fans of the show.

We must not forget that Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, not a crappy one. 32.97.110.142 12:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't do that. In the future, this issue may be revisited, but for now, the consensus must stand, since nothing's changed since the decision. If supporters would stop crying, and sign-up for accounts, make *good* solid edits on *multiple* articles, they would be able to participate in voting, and have their votes counted. Also, if articles you liked were improved, they would be more likely to be kept. Unilateral actions are destructive and harmful. It was wrong when User:Zoe unilaterly re-directed this and other articles, but it's equally wrong to unilaterly remove the re-directs against a vote. Abuses of wiki rules on both sides of the issue are wrong. I'm not an admin, and am only speaking for myself. --rob 12:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with the poster that is makes no sense at all to have pages for Ashlea or Eric or Maggie and not have one for Janelle who has done so much more in the game and has done so many other notable things. As for myself. I can't recommend that foks sign up for names and do edits to get taken seriously by some of these wiki folks because thats a load of crap. You need to have more than 300 edits before bothering to vote? Please. But Zoe got her way, so I guess that's whats really important to folks here.--66.149.92.242 13:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm not advocating people with no interest in editing, just edit for the sake of voting. But, if people care about part of wiki content, then contributing, is better than complaining. Also, the 300 is not the norm. Typically, somebody is excluded if they're brand new, or just contributing to what they're voting on. But, even though the 300 threshold was used here (unfortunately), to be fair, both sides had to meet the same requirement. --rob 13:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd have to say there's not much point to contributing when someone like Zoe can just get what you've done yanked. I AM glad to hear that 300 is not the norm, that looked just rediculous to me. Yes, both sides had to be over that, but given that sort of thing attracts two types 1) people who are familar with Janelle's accomplishments and 2) folks that don't like reality TV and/or contestants thereof, the deck it is stacked as the latter have been around this place longer. I'm not advocating undoing admin changes though as it's useless, as someone in the old boys network will just revert it. And really, I'm no longer certain this place is worth the time and effort. --66.149.92.242 14:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

So is Wikipedia a serious encyclopedia or not? I used to think it was, but now it has an article on a nobody like Ashlea Evans and no article on a notable person like Janelle Pierzina. This makes absolutely no sense. Also, what about all the hard work that was put into creating the Janelle article? Why just throw this away, what is the purpose? I know that the admins don't respect some of the contributors by not counting their votes, but what about the people who spend a lot of their personal time trying to improve Wikipedia by contributing to it... why kill their work? People are saying here that you need to CONTRIBUTE for your vote to be counted but when you contribute in this article, you get your work deleted, so what's the point?

I think that as long as the Ashlea article is there, the Janelle article must remain. Reverting. 32.97.110.142 14:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Dude, your heart is in the right place, but I'm afraid that the horse tends to be expired so you may wish to cease flogging it. Mayhaps Janelle will win, or do something else (as I expect she will) and then a new bio can be added. But right now the deck is stacked against her page, unfair and unreasonable as that may be. I'll admit, I was tempted to post about this to TWOP or HamsterTime and bring a few hundred enraged fanatics over here to fight the good fight, but for right now have decided to hold off a bit. Perhaps justice can be done without resorting to slash and burn tactics.--66.149.92.242 14:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
An example where fans have been successful: I've learned, once a music band is notable, every album they make, no matter how minor, even it's burned at home and sells 5 copies, gets it's own article, with no question. Now, in theory once a hugely successful TV show starts, its top people should at least be treated as well as a self-produced obscure low-selling album. What's the difference? Many music fans have ongoing named accounts on wikipedia with established edit histories. Every time somebody noms an obscure album, they jump to its defense and save it. But, on reality-tv, people come in to create the article as an anon, try to vote on it, complain bitterly when it's deleted, and then leave; having no effect whatsoever. Wikipedia is more open than most organizations, but like most it tends to favor "insiders", but anybody is allowed to be an insider, *if* they follow the rules. --rob 22:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I understand and even expect a certain amount of cronyism on sites like this. After a bit a certain community starts to form thats invariably hostile to outsiders. But unlike many sites where the outside is just ignored or flamed, here their work is either destroyed or tcuked away so it's difficult to find. I can understand why folks, upon seeing how hostile this place can be to the information they think is important and/or interesting, simply pick up and find someplace more to their liking. Of course, as you pointed out, that makes this place the poorer, as it misses out on information that folks might be looking for. And if they discover they can't find it here, they'll soon stop looking for information here. I had been intrigued by the whole concept of this place, but now am not so sure about staying and contributing as it's ideals are pretty much only that, ideals. I'm going to try to hold off a bit and see how things play out.--Firedrake 23:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised and disappointed at everything that has happened with this article. I have learned a lot about Wikipedia from this and it is not good. My vote was "interpreted" as weak so it was not counted, that was very surprising and I don't understand. I never even used the word redirect and the administrator thinks that's what I meant? Strange. I think everyone is important, not just certain people. I don't know what it takes to be considered as a useful Wikipedian who deserves respect, but by learning that I am not one of them, I am starting to wonder if contributing to articles on Wikipedia, spending hours working here is time well spent. Paul99 02:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janelle Pierzina 2

Because of the controversy surrounding my decision, I've decided that the best course of action is to attempt to reach a new consensus regarding this article. I hope that all of the concerned parties can agree with that. Please contribute to the AfD discussion by following the link above. Fernando Rizo T/C 11:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Template:Big Brother USA season 6 background considered for deletion

The template {{Big Brother USA season 6 background}} is being considered for deletion. To participate in the discussion go to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Big Brother USA season 6 background. This template is included in all of the bio articles for Big Brother USA season 6. --Rob 11:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The article seems very NEGATIVE or is it just me? CaravaggioFan 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looked at the history and realized Scooter who had his/her edits reverted before, came back and did it agin. I reverted it. CaravaggioFan 17:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV? anyone?

I know the people who edit this are probably Janelle heads, but the real name of the other allinace wasn't the Nerd Heard, thats what Howie called it, but they called it "The Friendship Alliance" so keep it neatural, i changed where it said nerd heard to reflect the truth

I just reverted to extremely negative NPOV issues on this page. There is an edit war going on between two anonymous users. Help from a mod/others would be appreciated.Gamer83 03:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting numeric change

Requesting change to section 3 Big Brothers 7

Current: "In fact, this belief has spawned more than 50 Janelle and Will tributes on the site Youtube.com"

should read "more than 150"

Information can be verified at http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bb7+will+janelle+tribute&search=Search

The URL search above shows 144 videos with the word "tribute" included in the title or description. Many of their music videos do not have the word tribute so "150" is a very conservative number.

Thank you

All taken care of for you.Gamer83 00:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/n/Talk%7EJanelle_Pierzina_c3e4.html"