Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta

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 DELETE. This article is heavily puppet-infested, and going over it gives a strong "delete" flavour. Most puppet-infested AfDs have ended up as "deletes" earlier too. Therefore I'm going to delete this. JIP | Talk 12:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rikki Lee Travolta

Self promotion, no reliable sources to back up claims made, claims father Michael is brother of John Travolta, but John has no brother Michael. Same story with their imdb entry [1], [2] (which claims that their nickname is Hero!?). Also listed as an employee at a marketing company here which describes them as a "Top Ten Amazon.com recommended author" (even though their book afded below is ranked 400,000) and "an internationally published journalist" while making no mention of their acting or singing career. Has a website http://www.travoltanet.com/.Arniep 01:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Seemed pretty easy to document all the sources if I did it right.[3] Easy to find tons of references to family, career, everything. It was fun and not that hard. I wouldn't delete it at all. Apparently John Travolta only has a half-brother named Michael, which might be the cause of all this commotion. Once I stumbled on that discovery it was easy to see the glaring fact that the listing of John Travolta's siblings specifies not total number of siblings, but total number of siblings from the union of Salvatore Travolta and Helen Burke [4]. Big difference when you look at it in that light. References in all the press to Rikki Lee Travolta are all to grandfather being Salvatore Travolta and father being born outside US (as in shamed outside of marital grounds pregnancy). No mention to Grandmother being Helen Burke. That is further hit home in the brand new category by Arniep Travolta Family [5] that again stipulates only decedents of the union of Salvatore Travolta and Helen Burke Travolta. That would exclude any half siblings and descendents. I suggest Rikki Lee Travolta be kept and category "Travolta Family" should be changed to "Travolta-Burke Family"? KingJamesCav 05:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Where does it say that John Travolta has a half brother named Michael? When was he born? Who was his mother? Arniep 12:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Royboycrashfan 01:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find anything to back up some of the claims made, and I suspect that there's a high degree of promotion going on here. Brian G. Crawford 02:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There's a real discrepancy between this article and the IMDB credits, which basically show him as an extra or bit player. IMDB also claims his father is Australian, which would contradict the claim that John is his uncle. Looks like self-promotion from an aspiring actor. Fan1967 02:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article makes many claims the imdb article doesn't nothing in the imdb article shows any notability, and book is published by Infinity Publishing, which is a self-publishing outfit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Bucketsofg 02:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 10:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. --Sam67fr 13:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. The subject is notable as an actor so article could be re-created, but not with the inflated and probably inaccurate claims that are in the current article. JRawle (Talk) 13:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think we are going to have articles for every actor in every theater production in the world. Arniep 17:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Weak Strong Keep He is certainly the nephew frequently is called a relative (nephew or cousin - see my comment below) of John Travolta [6] [7] [8] [9] and can be called some sort of celebrity [10]. His name has 21900 Google hits and his book My Fractured Life also gets more than 13000 Google hits. So I think he is notable Gu 14:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Those sites are are likely just sites used by agencies to promote their clients WP:RS. Arniep 16:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry Arniep but you're on a vendetta of some kind. TV Guide [11] and The Chicago Sun Times [12] are two of the biggest news sources in the world. Rikki Lee Travolta is well known to be John Travolta's nephew. You're seeing what you want to see instead of the facts. Re-read the spirit of good faith guidelines[13].Paramountpr 18:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly, the TV guide link says "There's also some kind of grassroots campaign on behalf of singer/theater actor Rikki Lee Travolta". A grassroots campaign led by who??? Secondly the Chicago Sun Times link is inexplicably not at the Chicago Sun Times website. Arniep 21:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment while I still think he is in some way related to John (but also think this point is rather unimportant) there is also a reference saying he is the cousin (not the nephew) of John [14] [15] which would possibly explain why his father is not mentioned as John's brother. I agree that there is an awful lot of terrible self promotion and that the article should be cleaned. Still he seems to me slightly more notable than non-notable, although I admit my strong keep should rather have been a week keep - so I modify my vote. Gu 08:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Gu's research. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete changing my vote after further readings. Kukini 16:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Rikki Lee Travolta or Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta and reconsider. Thatcher131 00:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• • This article should not be kept! Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_advertising_scam. Arniep 16:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Google hits for My Fractured Life seem to be equal parts cross posted press releases and coincidental uses of the phrase in blogs, with a few bookstores sprinkled in. Ehheh 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I started the Annie Travolta page and have been a contributor to many of the Travolta family pages including Margaret Travolta, Rikki Lee Travolta, Annie Travolta, and John Travolta. Many of those changes are reverting vandalism. It is right there in the history. There is no way, shape, or form that could remotely be confused as being in an “advertising scam”. I have NEVER removed members of the Travolta family from listings. I have worked hard to keep the integrity in tact. I think upon closer inspection you’ll see there was an influx of attempts by an anon (66.121.40.132) to vandalizing different Travolta family sites [16] (changing facts without providing sources or citations). When the anon seemed to be starting a revert war with different users I followed Wiki policy [17]and contacted them on their discussion page [18] to request documentation for the changes being made.

Its been noticed that you have made several repeated changes to the family elements of the John Travolta page and related pages. The policy at Wikipedia is to try to avoid revert wars going back and forth over the same territory. As follows are what we have confirmed as members of the Travolta family: Margaret Travolta, John Travolta, Ellen Travolta, Joey Travolta, Rikki Lee Travolta; Jack Bannon, Rachel Travolta, Nicole Travolta, Michael Salvatore Travolta, Helen (Burke) Travolta, Kelly Preston, Salvatore Travolta, Molly Allen Ritter, Jonathan Rau, Jet Travolta, Tom Fridley, Sam Travolta, Ella Blue Travolta, Valentino Travolta, and Annie Travolta. This is not an all inclusive list, but all those listed are confirmed. In respecting Wikipedia policy it is always necessary to approach differences of opinion in good faith. Although we have documented each of these individuals as relatives (of different levels of removal or closeness of course) within the extended Travolta family, ff you disagree with any person(s) on this list please provide the documentation and we should be able to come to a simple understanding relatively quickly (no pun intended). We thank you in advance for your cooperation.

The anon (66.121.40.132) did not respond. I assumed the matter was dropped but now I find out I am being lumped in some kind of witch hunt accusation by Arniep who seems to have some vendetta [19] based on feelings and assumptions without citing any sources and discounting such sources as TV Guide [20] and The Chicago Sun Times [21] as "just sites used by agencies".[22]

Firstly, the TV guide link says "There's also some kind of grassroots campaign on behalf of singer/theater actor Rikki Lee Travolta". A grassroots campaign led by who??? Secondly the Chicago Sun Times link is inexplicably not at the Chicago Sun Times website. Thirdly, the person you contacted had removed Rikki Lee Travolta from all the Travolta pages saying "Rikki Lee is not part of this clan" you then reverted them (see Special:Contributions/66.121.40.132). Arniep 20:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

While it's easy to make accusations like that, I think if you look at the history and facts you'll see that is very very far from the truth. Nobody is planning any big conspiracy. The Russians are not invading. Paramountpr 22:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Arniep's talk page [23] you see a long history of jumping to conclusions and waging war on opinions that are different than Arniep's. Not the spirit of good faith [24] that is intended and required for successful interaction. Sorry - one person's opinion shouldn't outweigh the facts. And Arniep is trying to make wide sweeping changes purely on opinioin without citing facts and ignoring the facts that do exist. The Rikki Lee Travolta [25] page appears to (now) have good documentation. The other page named: My Fractured Life [26] needs to be cleaned up and is so marked. This is nothing more than a witch hunt if you ask me and I'm offended to have been included in it because I was the one who tried to follow Wiki policy [27] to avoid this kind of pointless McCarthyism. Paramountpr 18:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you are obviously a sockpuppet of the many other user accounts each used for a short time to edit the same articles and push the same point of views listed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_advertising_scam . Arniep 20:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Rikki Lee Travolta is a real person and a relative of John per Daily Variety, the Chicago Sun-Times, Toronto Star, and others, per a Lexis/Nexis search. For example, from the New York Post in 2002,

THERE'S a strange postscipt to our item the other day about the Internet rumor that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas have created a computer-generated actor called "Rikki Lee Travolta." A rather odd actor named Rikki Lee Travolta does in fact exist, and held a press conference in Chicago Tuesday to prove it. "It's good to be alive," he stated. "I am an actor. I am a human being." Travolta, who is of Italian and Native American extraction and claims some family connection with John Travolta, appeared in "West Side Story" on Broadway. He wrote a novel, sports a gunshot wound and claims a doctorate in religious studies. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

Whether this person is notable enough for an article is another matter. Thatcher131 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The link you posted sums this up perfectly: an 'Internet rumor' was created, then he held a press conference to disprove it. He claimed to be related to John Travolta. Arniep 20:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A user has posted this link to the Rikki Lee Travolta page as a source. This page originates at PRWeb which describes itself as "a free online press release distribution service" and encourages users to "Write compelling stories. Your news release should capture the attention and imagination of the editors, journalists and writers that use this service as a resource for their work.". The page mentions a film that Rikki Lee Travolta was in called Camelot: Excalibur directed by Donna DeCarl and that the DVD will be released in 2004 by Abracadabra Productions. This is Donna DeCarl's IMDb entry here. Abracadabra productions are a Wedding photography company here. There is no film that exists called Camelot: Excalibur. Arniep 21:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don’t understand what the argument is.

Is it that Rikki is related to John?

Is it that Rikki is the best actor in the world?

Is it that the Travolta’s are successful enough to have a good publicist for Rikki?

Every time you voice an argument and someone proves you wrong or provides the sources you demand you change your argument.

First you said your problem was you wanted proof that Rikki Lee Travolta is John Travolta’s nephew. When Gu provided you with a TV Guide article that said specifically he is his nephew, your response was to say TV Guide isn’t a big enough magazine.

When I called you to the carpet on that and pointed out it’s one of the biggest magazines in the world, you responded by quoting the article EXCEPT for the part that says Rikki is John’s nephew and then changed your argument to be about some kind of grass roots something or other. (huh?)

Then you say that a reprint of a Chicago Sun Times article doesn’t count because its on an rss feed site instead of a direct link, so Thatcher131 gives you references in Variety, Toronto Star, and New York Post.

So you get frustrated and say we’re sock puppets?

Really, this is getting to be too much. I don’t know if the guy ran over your cat or dipped your pigtails in ink or what but when is enough enough?

Every time your arguments are disproved, you change your argument, and when all else fails you just call us names. Is that constructive?

When you first put a notice on the guy’s site that said it lacked sources, that was a good move. It did lack sources. Now it has sources that have been verified. Why change the argument? You won – you wanted sources, you got sources. The page is now Wiki compliant.

Sometimes people get so into fighting they forget what they wanted to accomplish. You already won and you don’t realize it. You wanted sources, you got sources. The article is good. Deletion isn’t even an issue any more because you got what you asked for.

Unless your have some purpose you haven’t shared with us – the issue is over. The sources you wanted have been cited and confirmed. Paramountpr 22:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Being related to someone famous does not make you notable. I'm not convinced by anything else I've seen that he is sufficiently notable in himself to warrant an article. Marcus22 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Bottom line, no matter if he's related to John Travolta or not, how does anything he's done make him notable enough for an article? I am on record as having had strong disagreements with Arniep in the past, but he cares about Wikipedia. It sounds to me like these "sources" are all bits that came from a very good publicist. So again we get into my own problem, which is what Wikipedia considers a good source. Just because something's in print doesn't make it so. And Rikki Lee Travolta has publicity mill written all over him. I don't know the criteria for putting a person in Wikipedia - but if there is criteria, on that alone, I vote for deletion.Chandler75 22:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Excellent points. The puffery of the article makes it difficult to take seriously anything that can't be verified. Based on the actual credits, his appearances in EdTV and Patch Adams aren't worth mentioning, and shouldn't have been. What's left? One indie movie, straight-to-video, involving nobody you've ever heard of, and a vanity-published book. Fan1967 00:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Chandler and Marcus who summarize it well. Also, see Thatcher's remarks and excellent research discussed on the talk page. JoshuaZ 22:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as his relationship to John Travolta, he fails to mention that relationship in his book. He sounds like that guy Elvis Presley, Jr.Chandler75 22:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as it fails WP:BIO on notability grounds and fails WP:V as discussed at Talk:Rikki Lee Travolta and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta (the discussion here is getting too long already). Thatcher131 00:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per basically everyone who voted Delete. JackO'Lantern 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough for an entry, see his imdb profile. Linkspam needs to be dealt with, but thats not a criteria for deletion. -M^ask 00:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

On the imdb profile two of the entries are uncredited parts and the other film probably did not actually exist and was created for resume purposes. Arniep 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You actually cannot put in a fake film on imdb - their criteria and the information they required is strict and verifiable - but it probably was an independent, right to DVD movie. Anyone who has worked in a film gets an imdb profile and will have verifiable credits listed. The bio, however, can be written by the person, a friend, a publicist, and can make all sorts of outrageous claims. There is still nothing that makes him noted enough for a bio on Wikipedia.Chandler75 01:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well. In 2000 I submitted to the IMDB the full cast and credits of the film "The Prophecy 3" (with Christopher Walken). However, I added actress Linnea Quigley to the cast, as playing a character I labelled "Hooker". The IMDB put her in along with everyone else. The credit is still there today, and will no doubt stay. Quigley was actually asked about how it was working with Walken in an interview! The best part? She said she didn't remember if she was in the movie, and she thought she might have been! That's how reliable your IMDB is. JackO'Lantern 01:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I said a fake film, not adding someone to a film. Try submitting a fake film and see how far you get. And try submitting a fake actor. If the actor has an imdb profile and the film is real, I suppose you can put someone in the cast who wasn't there because they could have been cut. I have independent films on DVD on my desk that I can't get on the imdb site, and I was a guest on 7 episodes of a TV show and can't get my own name on the episode lists that I myself added (I'm not currently on imdb as a "name" only as a contributor).Chandler75 02:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. In regards to adding a fake actor, someone's managed to take credit for a lot of voice roles she didn't do with only an anime "photograph" as proof of her existence. Danny Lilithborne 06:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, there must have been some first-time actors in a video movie like Prophecy 3. And obviously, the IMDB would have accepted them and created profiles for them, if say, I had submitted them as part of the whole cast, like I did Quigley. So it is fairly easy to create a first-time actor, and "maintain" them, if you submit a bunch of reliable looking credits for films. You can find Quigley's reaction (funny because it reflects the reality of the video horror industry) to being asked about the film in this interview, [28]. JackO'Lantern 02:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't get my name in as part of a "cast" - imdb only took those people already on imdb. Unless they're just not watching like they used to - I've had trouble getting many legitimate credits for people on, and that includes production credits. E-mail me if you think you can add me, all I can say, and then tell me your secret.Chandler75 03:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment There have been fake films added to IMDb before and also ones that were announced but never made or released. They generally get deleted if evidence accrues that it never existed or is not going to be made. Black the Ripper was deleted I think after a TV Guide column in which people who were supposed to have been involved with it were interviewed, and entries for the 4th and 5th Return of the Living Dead movies disappeared and reappeared as it went through development hell. Шизомби 15:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I also gather he's playing Thor on the new Marvel film. A little crystal ballery, but that will be notable. -M^ask 01:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nooooooooooooooooooooo.!!! Please look at the talk page, this person has a history of putting out misleading press releases and this Thor one is no different. Arniep 01:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Arniep -M^ask
• Strong Keep sounds to me like a lot of people don't like him. That don't mean he's not notable. Just the opposite. Notable doesn't just meant people who are loved, you can be hated and be notable too. High googles, high press coverage, high number of opinions...that definitely passes the WP:KIT test. If Rikki Lee Travolta is more notable than Nidorino or any other random Pokémon gets its own page, then Rikki Lee Travolta can be hated but get his own page.  : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 02:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't like him? I don't know who he is! Even Wikipedia with its rather loose "legitimate references" I don't think considers publicity items and "high googles" legitimate. Now, if you want to make a case for him being notable as an ersatz celebrity who launches wild publicity campaigns and self-publishes a bio as if he's already established as the next James Dean, you may have a point.Chandler75 02:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, note that Lonesomedovechocolate first edit was today and that she and immediately went to the articles for deletion. I was under the impression that that was not a common thing for new users to do. Nor was immediate proper signing and formating of deletion comments. And on her second edit she knows what a stub is. JoshuaZ 02:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That's because LonesomeDove just landed over from Sockpuppet heaven... JackO'Lantern 02:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the above user made his first edit on April 6, 2006 [29].--Jersey Devil 05:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Fishhead64 04:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but someone please clean out the unnecessary comments (..being considered for...) cite more sources, get better real detail (where exactly did he get his degrees?); if the article doesn't get cleaned-up, might change my mind -- Argon233 ^T _@ ^C _¶ ^U _∠  06:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no way to clean it up as nothing released about him is reliable (see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/My Fractured Life). Arniep 13:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete IMDB shows just three extremely minor roles: one uncredited, one an obscure direct-to-video release (which isn't even sold on Amazon), and one as a bellhop in an upcoming micro-budget comedy. I'm inclined to believe the John Travolta relation, as there looks to be a resemblance, but being related to someone famous doesn't equal notability anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough Sonybmg 14:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Above editor has less than 15 edits with many to the RLT article. JoshuaZ 14:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Jonas Silk 21:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable information all over the place. He's not a celebrity. As others have said, being related to famous people doesn't make you famous, unless you're Billy Carter. Heck, I'm related to Johnny Rotten but I'm not famous...right?  RasputinAXP  c 17:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Keep per news sources cited on page Rikki Lee Travolta per King James. I've entered info on Travolta myself. Brotherstork 02:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Brotherstork is another user who has edited the RLT article and not much else. Less than 10 edits total. JoshuaZ 02:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They aren't news sources they are PRs sent out by this person and their agent. Arniep 13:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep He's a well known actor. Happy-go-go 16:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am constantly amazed that new editors are able to find their way to this deletion debate without ever having visited Rikki's article itself. It's like they're psychic or something. Note to closing admin protection against recreation would probably be a good idea. Thatcher131 16:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• I start to think that maybe the best would be to Redirect to press release as this Rikki is certainly most notable for his ability to launch successful press releases and this would help to avoid likely good faith recreations Gu 19:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The "verifiable" source for the statement that Rikki was "the first celebrity guest star for the Tony n' Tina's Wedding franchise" is hosted on onlypunjab. (which has a prominent link in the corner to post your own press release. If that isn't the definition of non-notable I don't know what is.Thatcher131 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: He seems to be a rising actor who is at least somewhat notable. There's a lot more info on him than I would've guessed after seeing all the deletes. --Wizardman 22:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. He's a rising actor. Wait until he's risen and then he will warrant a page on Wikipedia.Chandler75 04:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Which info in particular? Arniep 23:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

He has a fairly versatile career consisting of theater and literary accomplishments, and Him being "considered" for the James Bond role (whether or not it was fake) kinda pushed me over into keeping him up. He hasn't done a LOT, but I think he's done enough to at least get his own page. I'll put some more information on him into his page if I can find some more, becuase it's out there. --Wizardman 00:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, then I'd like my own page. I've had three books published, had my own weekly column in an international magazine, and have appeared on stage and television -more than Rikki Lee. I also generate more hits than he does since I now write a daily column. I'll add to my website that I was considered for a Bond girl, claim to be Madonna's cousin, and we're good to go. If someone tried to write me up and submit me for an article here, I think it would be proposed for deletion - probably by Arnie! And he'd be within his rights.Chandler75 04:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How can something that might be fake push you into keeping the article? And have you looked at the discussion on the literary accomplishment below Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_5#My_Fractured_Life? Arniep 00:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also please note that the claimed appearences in major productions such as Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat cannot be verified. Arniep 00:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I worded that a little wrong. What I meant by "might be fake" is that it (the Bond rumor)might have been self-promoted by him. Still though, he has over 20,000 google hits, and while it's hard to find one true reason to give him an article, it's hard to find a reason to get rid of it completely. He seems to be a guy that puts up a facade about himself, definitely. I'm conflicted on my opinion now, though.--Wizardman 00:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at the CD he has on Amazon here. The first reviewer only reviews one other thing, a book entitled "Another Bullshit Night in Suck City: A Memoir" on which they comment: "In the same ballpark as "A Million Little Pieces", "My Fractured Life", and "Fortress of Solitude."". Note My Fractured Life. Arniep 00:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete I don't like no Travolta but John Travolta. Who are these people like Joey Travolta and Ricki Travolta and Magaret Travolta? That aint John Travolta. Only John Travolta. Delete all the other pages. Aint no love. EraserX 01:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete LuckyJoeMagic 04:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep

I’m going to start by following the guidelines and announcing for the whole wide world that I have contributed to editing the Rikki Lee Travolta wikipedia page. This is the point that I get attacked for having contributed to the Rikki Lee Travolta wikipedia page and it should somehow disqualify me from voting on whether it should be deleted or not. See, there’s a flaw there. I contributed. I have an active interest. I have an established knowledge that proceeds this debate. Therefore it makes full sense that I should cast a vote.

In fact, the wikipedia guidelines specifically state that when someone submits a page for deletion the principle contributers should be notified for the very reason that their input would be valuable. To go one step further the wikipedia guidelines actual encourage notifying the key contributors prior to submitting a deletion nomination so see if a simple fix is possible.

Guess what? I was never contacted. I stumbled on the fact all this kangaroo kourt business is going on when someone changed a page I was watching that I contributed to and I followed the links back to here. Boy was I surprised.

Guess what else? I did a little research in following talk links. Not only was this page put up for deletion without notifying me, who admittedly only did a few edits, but NOBODY who made ANY positive comments or contributions was contacted. That’s not the policy.

Wait? You mean this little kangaroo kourt might not be on the up and up. No! Don’t say it.

Guess what else? There people contacted, it seems everyone who had something negative to contribute at any point in history was contacted and encouraged and invited to come vote for deletion.

AND, everyone who voted to keep the page was contacted and encouraged to change their vote.

Not understand that I don’t particularly give a poppycock whether the page stays or goes, but it should be done by the rules. When someone is so committed to fast-tracking a kangaroo kourt deletion that they lie, sock puppet, and break rules left and right then something is wrong with the picture.

I made a point on the discussion page. The attacker is misrepresenting all his or her opinions as fact and then disregarding the true facts because he/she doesn’t like them.

The wikipedia site is referenced. It points to documented sources. Good hard news sources.

The attackers seem to make up quotes and expect them to believed. The mention parts of articles and leave off the parts that they don’t like – you know, the parts with facts in them.

You have hundreds of thousands of sources stating Rikki Lee Travolta is John Travolta’s nephew. The attacker says none of them count because one article in the Chicago Sun Times stated he is not. In fact the Sun Times went back and corrected that statement, but the attacker leave that part out…just like the attacker leaves off that the article in question that they are claiming is the one true fact out of hundreds of thousands of counter-articles is all about the guy being the star of syndicated television series. Why leave that part out of the quote? Not because that part would make the guy notable – right? That would be unfair. That would be breaking the rules.

The attacker lists 2006 sales figures for a 2002 book Travolta wrote. In 2002 Amazon had it as a Top 25 recommendation. (I couldn’t find the Top 10 proof but there are were more than enough Top 25 references). In 2003 there was a New York Times Best Seller named “Dad, Dames, Demons and a Dwarf” by radio personality Mancow Muller. In 2006 it’s sales figures are a worse ranking than Travolta’s book. That doesn’t mean the books weren’t popular in their day.

I read all these comments. Every time someone voices a positive opinion, the attacker (or appropriate puppet) jumps in and bashes and trashes with no facts, just accusations and falsehoods.

Do you need to be told what your opinion is? I don’t.

Attack me. I don’t care. At least I can stand by my opinion and interpret facts without being swayed by bullying attacks.

Fact: 2 albums Fact: Nominated for Grammy Fact: Movie credits Fact: TV credits Fact: Ranked in top 5 in world as star of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat by Broadway World News Fact: Member of Travolta Family Fact: He wrote a novel that was really popular in its time. Fact: A movie company is making the book into a movie Fact: Was reported around the world as possible James Bond Fact: Check the current news and there’s articles about him. Fact: Google hits over 20,000

I don’t care what you decide. I don’t care how you vote. But the vote on facts, not how some joker wants to sway you to vote just to prove he or she knows more than you do. ~ Bostic5.0 05:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC) This user's only edits have been to this article or to add this person's name to other pages. Arniep

• I agree with you than when someone nominates an article for deletion he should notify the main editors. As for the rest of your claims, I have answered on the Talk page. Thatcher131 06:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you as well, and I know what you're talking about - I was on the other side of a big discussion on an article that actually went into mediation and I know where you're coming from. Since Thatcher has answered the other questions, I won't reiterate. I'm not sure how an article gets deleted. I was asked for my opinion and I gave it. If this article stays in, fine.Chandler75 14:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. This delte campaign (it looks to me) is nothing more than a highly orchestrated attempt to delete a page for personal reasons. None of the rules were followed by the person nominating. The main editors were not advised ahead of time for opinions. The main editors were not advised when it was put up for nomiation. I was only just notified by another. editor because of other actions by this person. Votes to keep have been attacked and bullied. He has gone out to recruit and ask people to come vote to delete. This is not what this community is about. This is an Abuse of the System. It is Abuse. 65.209.181.195 18:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC) This user's only edits have been to this article or to add this person's name to other pages. Arniep

As someone who has been on the opposite side of Arniep, I will tell you that your recruitment theory is incorrect. He asked me only, as someone involved in film and theater research, to see what I could learn about Rikki Lee's career. He never once asked me to vote or put my opinions on this page. These accusations you bring are nothing new for Arniep, but as in the case I was involved in, they're also not true. I will agree that sometimes he has a way of doing things that seem to stomp all over other views, but this is a discussion about whether or not this person warrants an article in Wikipedia at this time, nothing else. It doesn't mean that if it's deleted now, there will not be an article at a future date. If you want to attack Arnie, go to his talk page.Chandler75 23:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think Arniep has some problems. There is nothing wrong with this article, and it's pretty clear at this point that he is indeed part of the Travolta family. Sandro67 20:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Err sorry? I think you have been influenced by the vast sock puppet army above. Please see the contributions of the accounts listed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_advertising_scam and you will see that their sole activity has been to add information about this person to numerous articles. Please also read Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_5#My_Fractured_Life. Arniep 21:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I am proud to have been the editor to start the Joey Travolta page. I know a lot about the Travolta family. I have contributed as an editor to the Rikki Lee Travolta page. Undoubtedly Rikki Lee Travolta is a real person, is related to Joey, Ellen, John, Maggie, Sam, Annie, Tommy, Jonathan, Rachel, Jet, so on and so forth on and on et al.... That is not and should not be his claim to fame. He is an accomplished actor, well known and well respected. Clearly "Arniep" (and his pseudonyms) has an issue with Rikki Lee Travolta and is making a personal attack. I've looked at his contributions. He has gone recruiting to get people to vote 'Delete'. See the warning at the top of the page. Ballot stuffing shouldn't be the goal. The truth should be the goal. The truth is there is nothing wrong with the article. Icemountain2 22:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC) This user's only edits have been to this article or to add this person's name to other pages. Arniep
• Keep Whatever the personal differences are driving this debate, if you strip away the opinions and get to the real matter: there is nothing wrong with the article. I have reviewed it more than once, more than this one time. I previously provided insight in the form of review and removal of flags. Hardwoodhaywood 02:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Fascinating another user who has only edited to add mr travolta to articles and who only has a handful of edits. Rikki, when was the last time you cleaned your laundry? The socks smell real bad. JoshuaZ 02:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Tabulation For sake of convenience I have tabulated the comments to date on Wikipedia Talk:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta Thatcher131 02:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This smells like a mix of well done self promotion (of a real but non-notable person. see photo) with a dash of hoax that has sucked in a few publishers and journo's. And the influx of orchestrated puppeteering rings warning bells to me. -- Ian ≡ talk 15:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the bulk of the above comments. Appears to be self-promotion for a non-notable person whose famous familial links are tenuous at best. None of the reference links appear to be anything other than personal PR on the part of this person. 70.60.149.226 15:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I am not certain if I am in fact allowed a vote. I contributed in the past to the Rikki Lee Article in minor fashion. I do not consider myself of any ranking of expertise. The dialogue presented in these proceedings suggests all parties who have contributed to the article in question or any article concerning a member of the Travolta family is not qualified, nor allowed, to register a vote for consideration in this discussion. That said, revue of the governing ordinances suggests otherwise. If my vote is allowed, so be it. If it is not, please disregard it. I was not advised of these proceedings by the instigator the nomination as is suggested by governing ordinances but upon notification by 3rd party via talk/discussion I have voluntarily added myself to the proceedings in effort towards positive resolution. I have done a modicum of research towards adding references to information contained within the article in question. References now exceed 30, which in comparison to other articles is clearly indicative of a larger than is usual. I hope this information should prove useful. If not, no offense taken. Cokenotpepsi 04:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You are not forbidden from expressing your opinion, but this is not a vote. The fact that you have never made any edit that did not relate to Rikki Lee Travolta does have some bearing on your credibility. Fan1967 04:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• The problem is that very if any of the references count as reliable source. For example, if you look at the claim he is being considered for the role of Thor, you have four citations but they all trace back to a single announcement by ComicBoards.com. The book My Fractured Life has never been mentioned in a major newspaper or magazine either as a book review or in connection with the alleged movie deal. His IMDB entry was written by his personal manager. And so on. See Wikipedia Talk:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta for more information. On the flip side, I am curious as to how it comes to pass that at least eight people join wikipedia in November, 2005; only edit articles about Rikki Lee Travolta, and never edit any other articles until his article is challenged. At the very least, it is a staggering example of Synchronicity and I'm sure the eight of you have an awful lot to talk about (if you don't know each other already.) Thatcher131 06:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, apologies if I'm repeating what someone else said about (there are a lot of comments to read through up there) but I went to the imdb page for "Twilight Serenade" and I have to say there is something a bit off about it. If you click on all of the names of the people purported to be in the cast of this movie, every single person in this movie, with two exceptions, has exactly one role in their entire lives ever, and of those two, one has other credits as gay porn, and the other has a credit as an "Ewok". Now, I'm sure it's possible that a movie existed and every single person in the cast did that one exact movie and then disappeared, but this seems really fishy to me. Of course, aside from all this, delete in any case because this is unnotability at its finest. --Deville (Talk) 04:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete rubbish.ßlηguγεη | Have your say!!! 06:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant Stupidity. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I am totally astonished by this. Not all the refs are to IMDb: look at this one or this one, for instance. For me to believe that this is an elaborate hoax strains credibility; I can't begin to imagine how a person could manage such a thing. And yet there is indeed something quite odd about it all, and the idea that he is a exceptionally prolific self-promoter also seems totally plausible. I could not possibly vote on this as I have absolutely no idea whether the article is entirely true, partially true, or entirely false. Everyking 10:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • And look at the Amazon.com book page! [30] Could it really be that the book is made up? The cover looks like something you could design on a simple computer program, but then there's the reviews and all the publishing and availability info... Everyking 10:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes look at the Amazon page and see what else the reviewers have reviewed, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Fractured Life. Arniep 11:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: If there is doubt, if there is murkiness in the references, then, as an encyclopedia, we don't include it. Let's be simple about this: Wikipedia is not a primary source. If the person is a great astroturfer, then his fame will last only as long as the electrons fly, which isn't long. Until there are real and inarguable roles of substance, there is no article. Remember that anyone who thinks that advertising on Wikipedia is a good move is already failing at art, music, business, or life (one of the new Geogre's Laws). Geogre 11:21, 10 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.