Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angie Dickinson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, WP:SNOW, obviously meets WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Angie Dickinson

Angie Dickinson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

While AfD is not cleanup, this "article" reads like a resume, or at least a fan magazine entry. Its over-use of flowery adjectives, and so on lead me to believe that this was/is plagiarised from somewhere. If so, it needs deletion, and to be started over. - jc37 19:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up - I agree that it's really awful, but she's eminently noteworthy and I don't know that deletion is the way to solve the problem. I'm happy to embark on a rewrite but it'll have to wait a little while. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - subject easily passes WP:BIO. As per nom, AfD is not cleanup. --BelovedFreak 19:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable. If it is a copy-vio then it should be fixed, but a look at the history shows hundreds of edits over several years. I'm sure there must be salvagable info if it can be shown that theres some copy-vio issues and not just a style issue.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable actress. Use some cleanup tags next time. --Pixelface (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - To clarify, my concern isn't notability, it's copy-vio. - jc37 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You can read WP:COPYVIO. Bring it up on the talk page. Is there a reference or URL you believe the text comes from? --Pixelface (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You can put {{copypaste}} and {{likeresume}} and {{peacock}} in the article if you'd like. You can find other cleanup templates at WP:TC. --Pixelface (talk) 20:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If copy-vio is shown conclusively, i'd still suggest stubbing and not a delete. No need to start over on the sections like filmography and the infobox imho.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Even if this is entirely a copy-vio, deletion is not the answer, given the subject's clear notability. Stubbing is far more appropriate. And, just to be clear, there shouldn't even be any stubification unless the article is found to be a copyright violation in its entirety. If only parts of it are copied, then only those parts should be deleted and possibly rewritten.TJRC (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Nom even admits to using AfD for cleanup, which AfD is not. The subject is very clearly notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no question that Dickinson is notable and meets the WP:BIO requirements. To the extent some parts are over-flowery, that's as much indicative that it was written by a fan, which is no big surprise. Bios of entertainers are often created and edited primarily by their fans. I'm not saying that shouldn't be corrected, but style alone is not a reasonable basis from which to infer plagiarism or copyright infringement. If there's some actual basis for infringement, that should be presented and addressed. This is a candidate for cleanup, not for deletion. TJRC (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course. —WWoods (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Somebody wanna snowball close this? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Do I really need to give a reason? AfD isn't for cleanup, even the nom admits this, and his reasons for even bringing this here are odd. She meets WP:BIO and yes, it does need cleanup, but the nom should be bold about that Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 20:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.