Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beth Sallay Effect

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 FrancisTyers 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Beth Sallay Effect

The article claims to describe the phenomenon of a named woman who added fradulent filmography about herself to various online sources and had it propagate between sites that copied off each other. It purports to make a point about the reliability of internet information, but ironically it is itself completely unsourced. {{unsourced}} tags have been removed from the articles more than once, and the authors have been unable or unwilling to provide respectable sources for the claims in the article, despite repeated requests (see also the talk page). Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Henning Makholm 19:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment If you google as "Elizabeth Sallay" instead of Beth you do find a large number of entries for an "uncredited" performer in a variety of TV and film projects. Looks like IMDB has her cleaned out (they have a listing for her but no credits) but all sorts of other sites have her as a performer in all kinds of things. Fan1967 20:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just how do you think such results counts as respectable sources for the central claims in the article: that she (a) did not actually perform in these projects, and (b) herself fradulently added her name to various sources? Without verifiable sources, there is no telling whether this article is not just an attempt to defame an real bit part actor. Henning Makholm 20:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone other than you claiming fraud... and that is a very serious legal charge. I'd be interested in your sources for the facts stated in the article being fraud if true. I've reread the article, and don't find any claim of fraud at all, much less as the central point. But the laws may be different in your country.

Keep. There is legitimate question of whether or not it is wikipedia material (as I have said before), however the reasons for the deletion (the facts being wrong) are bogus. IMDB cleaned her out because the credits were fake. I personally have [As Henning is very well aware] given a talk on the effect here last year. (By the way , my page here gives the reason that I didn't write a page on the effect, commentary that has been there since last year) But I don't think that there is any reaonable doubt that it was a hoax. (And obviously IMDB didn't think there was doubt either either.) And there is the common sense point that the filming of several of the movies were in geographic different areas at the same time... :) And a look at the parts Henning alleges may be some specific "real bit part actor" clearly don't look like each other. Disclaimer: I've been following the project for years with great humor, and know her personally, so my opinion is biased. Nahaj 03:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment The facts may or may not be bogus. The problem is that they seem to be unverifiable. Can you provide any citations or publications to support the story? The fact that you know her personally and can personally vouch for the story does not qualify as a reliable source. - Fan1967 04:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and also if she's uncredited she's not verifiable nor notable ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'm afraid Lexis/Nexis doesn't come up with anything, suggesting the phenomenon is possibly not notable and definitely not verifiable. Can you provide specific reliable independent coverage of the story? Otherwise delete. Thatcher131 05:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think many people might regard it as notable, if it could be verified. Certainly we've seen a lot of suspicious "uncredited" credits on aspiring actors. Maybe if she can document and publish her results, the story would get picked up, and this could legitimately be recreated. Looks like it fails both notability and verifiability right now. Fan1967 16:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I am obviously in favor of keeping it but I think the topic needs more research. I would like to get a response from some of the sites, and including imdb, who have plagarized this info and see their view but I doubt they would be willing to do so. I plan on doing a write-up and possibly posting it on Wikipedia again. FYI, if there is any doubt that I actually did this, yes, my name is uncommon so there isn't another 'Elizabeth Sallay'; actress I am attempting to libel. It's not difficult to do this via imdb either as I have added some of my friends to various movie projects, also as 'uncredited' and their listing has yet to be pulled. BlueTrinity 09:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Does the use of first person here indicate that BlueTrinity is the "Beth Sallay" of the article? If so, the article fails WP:OR as well as of [[WP:V]. Wikipedia is not a publication forum for original research. Henning Makholm 03:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if Bluetrinity is not Beth Sallay, her plan violates policy on Original Research. The way to go about this is to get the story published somewhere else first (Wired, Slate, etc); then an editor, not necessarily you, could cite that here. Wikipedia is a compilation/summary of things published elsewhere, not a publisher of original content. Thatcher131 15:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn, neologism. -Objectivist-C 03:57, 23 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.