Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Griggs Havey

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 keep the cleaned-up version. Good work, everyone. Turnstep 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julia Griggs Havey

This page is self promotion and spam and has no business in an encyclopedia.--Joe Jklin 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional keep as per Kusma (author has shown willingness to change page).--Joe Jklin 04:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Nationalparks 01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Vanity, ad. Eron 01:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Make that Keep, the rewrite is good and the subject is notable. Eron 12:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: has a page, and supposedly Havey has sold more books than . There are also 74,300 Google results to her name. -- Zanimum 01:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

other author's page looks like a Wikipedia page. If Julia's page were formatted and wikified, and less like an ad, I might be inclined to change my vote. Right now it reads as vanity, self promotion, and advertising. Nationalparks 01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nationalparks but it should be an outside editor. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so. But Julia Havey could be considered a notable author ( I got 25,400 unique google hits).--Joe Jklin 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean she took the exclaimation point directly from her bio on ediets. Encyclopedias don't have ! marks. When the article is fixed, I will reconsider my vote. But as it is now, still delete. Nationalparks 02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Nationalparks. Tokakeke 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This edit where she says "Were you a tattletale with no friends in school or do you just enjoy making people's life miserable for no reason?" doesn't help her case, in my opinion. Nationalparks 03:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs major cleanup, but keep, combination of fairly popular books and media coverage means notability.-Polotet 03:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To argue my case, I simply saw a page for another author and did a listing for me. I didn't know all of your rules and within like 10 minutes Joe nominated me for banishment (sp?). I didn't intend to break your rules or do anything wrong, had never even heard of your site before. I thought it was cool and wanted to be part of it. Seems like a lot of fuss over something that really wasn't/isn't problematic. Not like I am trying to hurt people, I help women lose weight, empower their lives and get healthy. As for my rude comment to Joe, sorry, I am human. But jeez, within minutes he voted to have me banned, yes, to me it seemed a bit tattletale like and I knee jerked back to him. I deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs)

If you are willing to rewrite the article in a more encyclopedic fashion (less like an ad, etc.), I will be willing to change my vote to keep, but not the way it is. There is a difference between "banishment" and deleting an article you've written.Nationalparks 03:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited it, it seems pretty nuetral to me, I would welcome any suggestions and changes you have. I realize there is a difference, but since it is "me" who is being deleted, it does feel like being banished! Julia —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs)

• Conditional keep if proper citations from reliable sources can be provided. If this was really the top-2 weight loss book author at amazon at some time^{[citation needed]}, she should pass WP:BIO. Kusma (討論) 03:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep as per Kusma. I have made the article much more encyclopedic and added an image. Nationalparks 04:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to see some relevant pages link into Julia's page (right now no mainspace pages link in). Nationalparks 04:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep per User:Kusma. --Arnzy (Talk) 04:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although it's often considered distasteful to write an article about yourself, there's no official policy against it, and Havey is clearly a notable author. --Hyperbole 04:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Week Keep I have done an additional rewrite on the page to further expurgate the ad-feel. I think the tag can now be removed. Eusebeus 11:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Now that Eusebeus has rewritten it, it seems a lot more clearer to keep. The author is reasonably notable. Englishrose 08:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for helping me get the listing done correctly. A notable author, perhaps, but certainly not a wikified one--until now! I am a fast learner, again, thanks and I really do love the site, it is great what you are all doing here. Much respect, Julia —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs)

• Delete This still looks like an advertisement. The book cover image seems far too promotional and, therefore, inappropriate. The sentence "She is currently a motivator at a diet-loss website, eDiets.com" should be deleted, as it misleadingly implies that the author is a consultant to the website when in fact they are the sole operator. The link to the author's commercial webpage also seems too promotional and should be deleted. This author made a rather inauspicious debut on Wikepedia by attempting to create a self-aggrandizing Wikipedia page (presumably for commercial purposes), adding commercial links to the Obesity page, deleting substantial amounts of content from the Juice Plus page, and by making a personal attack on one of the editors. Also, it is salient that the author’s entry was self-submitted, which runs counter to editorial policy 15:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as it is fairly likely she meets WP:BIO as an author. Page should be watched though to protect it from the creator.--Isotope23 15:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put the book cover there and totally do not mind if you take it off, that book is 3 years old! I am a consultant at eDiets.com, I don't even own stock in the publicly traded company much less the sole operator! That is not an accurate statement on which to base a delete decision. NOT correct. I am the Master Motivator at eDiets.com and DO NOT own that company. I own my own company that makes my LifeChanger program, which is not even available for purchase at eDiets.com! Julia Havey —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs)

• Keep, it may have started as vanity but other people have worked on it to bring it to an acceptable level. If Ms. Havey can resist the temptation to work on the article in the future and add linkspam to obesity-related articles, I see no reason why we can't keep it. I would encourage Ms. Havey to review Wikipedia policies and gain experience working on other articles. --AlexWCovington (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep It seems like it might be sufficiently NPOV minus the book cover and commercial external link. Rhode Island Red 02:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep Startup account 23:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep - needs further work - Runcorn 21:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete creator's promotion. --MaNeMeBasat 14:10, 27 April 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.