Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Marie Ritter

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 of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G4, reposting of deleted content. Stifle 00:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christina Marie Ritter

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

This page was just voted to be deleted under the name Christina Ritter. Self/promotion - non-notable actress.

Delete per above. Maltesedog 20:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as re-posted content. Makemi 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete CSD G4.--Blue520 21:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy G4 per above. Royboycrashfan 21:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete so I can further justify removing unsourced casting speculation from The Lovely Bones book and film articles. Daniel Case 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete She's a real actress, and so what if she only has six sites found on google? I mean, she's still cool. Why delete her just for not having a big fanbase like some other stars? I think we should allow the page to remain because as editors it is our goal to maintain updated and proper info on this site. That info is true(I checked the sites as well) and it's not obsene or otherwise because it's a simple little page. —This unsigned comment was added by 209.163.118.161 (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete Christina is just starting in the business so don't delete her just because she only has six sites. Wikipedia is a vast growing database and this is just another new piece of info. I mean, if you have proof(which six sites to me is enough) then go with it. —This unsigned comment was added by 209.163.118.161 (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete As per above. —This unsigned comment was added by 209.163.118.161 (talk • contribs) .
Comment: This user removed the above votes by TBC, Maltesedog, Makemi, Blue520, Ryboycrashfan, and Daniel Case. And is also trying to ballot-stuff - the above three votes were added in one edit. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as reposting. The alleged credits still are unverifiable and almost certainly false. Fan1967 01:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • ...and Protect once deleted. Last time, on Christina Ritter, the article was recreated within 18 hours. Fan1967 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't DeleteAddieSo what if she only has six webpages? That doesn't mean she's a fake. —This unsigned comment was added by 67.111.134.249 (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't DeleteHannah I say give it a chance, use the trust system. —This unsigned comment was added by 67.111.134.249 (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't DeleteColleen This is so stupid, she has six sites. What's wrong with not being a famous star, long as she has some sites I say stick with it. —This unsigned comment was added by 67.111.134.249 (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't DeleteUser:Fame live4ever Wow it looks like I'm not alone, finally. It seemed like a one sided argument at first which I thought was entirely unfair. —This unsigned comment was added by 67.111.134.249 (talk • contribs) .
Comment: Another vote-stuffing. The user added four of these in one edit. User:Fame live4ever deleted most of the above votes. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry The above four comments were all added at the same time by 67.111.134.249 (talk · contribs). Recommend that this IP, as well as Fame live4ever (talk · contribs) be blocked. Fan1967 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Do I smell sock puppets? Somebody has been tampering with the votes for this entry. Will have to keep a watch... I could not confirm any of the information on this page. Even if true she appears to have only played bit roles. Non-notable/likely vanity. — RJH 16:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The following entries were apparently deleted by Fame live4ever: (Snip, see below -w4) — RJH 16:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I restored all of the stuff the anon people tried to nuke. Nice try. Too bad we have this thing called "History tab". =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Fame liver4ever I see you all are judging based on very little evidence. You haven't clearly stated your reasoning, and reports of her being false...I'd like you all to back that up. Show me firm evidence that this actress is a fake, which you have failed to do so far. The reason I have bent some rules is the fact that almost everyone on here is being inexplicitly rude to me in their consideration about this page. I have been almost cornered as if you were all a pack of dogs and I was an innocent newbie. Yes I've done bad deleting some comments, but it was because you all did not fairly consider my proposal. I wish you all could see how unfairly you have treated me, and at least consider my arguing case. (By the way only two of those are my puppets, not all) Also you saying she's played bit roles, doesn't mean she shouldn't be on here at all. Again with your lack of consideration. Try to be fair, please.

Please sign your messages properly. Regrettably, we have certain notability criteria, and that means we can't include every bit player just because. We realize having an article you've worked on slated for deletion may cause some stress; please let this be a lesson and always approach the deletions with calmness, rationality and present objective proof on why the subject is notable. And if you have no such evidence, don't take undue stress if the article is deleted, consider if it is notable to warrant a mention somewhere else. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Read the policies Information for Wikipedia must be VERIFIABLE. It is not up to anyone to prove the entries false; you must be able to prove them true. You claim she's in the new Pirates of the Carribean movie. IMDB lists a dozen major cast members and 73 supporting actors. None of them is her. Every piece of information you have posted about her (about yourself?) has proven impossible to verify. Your actions in trying to pretend to be multiple people, and in repeatedly changing and vandalizing entries in this discussion, cast serious doubts about your honesty in general, so your unsupported word doesn't count for much. This has gone on long enough, and I recommend a Speedy close to this debate. Fan1967 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur. We should post Suspected Sockpuppet notices on these latest voters. JackO'Lantern 17:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete We are forgetting this is a nn actor. We are forgetting this is reposted content. Let's not forget to delete this, but make sure the deletion is quick and fast. J.J.Sagnella 20:35, 31 March 2006 (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.