Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violetta (performer)

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 no consensus. Chaser - T 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violetta (performer)

Violetta (performer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

It's dubious whether she passes WP:BIO. Under 100 ghits minus Wikipedia and mirrors, most of which are personal websites, not WP:RS. This is about a performer in circus sideshows in the 1920s without any limbs. I think this is a case of WP:INTERESTING more than anything else. Does have an entry on the German Wikipedia and one on the Finnish Wikipedia, both of which are unreferenced stubs. Unreferenced stub. Doesn't show how she is notable besides her deformity, which in itself is not notable. Perhaps her performances are, but I'm not so sure.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - a merge may be possible if anyone wants to do that.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment you searched under her real name. Search under her stage name and more hits generate, although it's difficult to filter them from other Violettas. A number of the hits look promising but my office filter doesn't allow me to view them. Otto4711 14:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "Unreferenced stub"? LOL. Can this be merged somehow? On its own, its not much of an article. Freshacconci 17:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google shows that she was notable mostly for being featured in Ripley's Believe It or Not!. See [1] and [2] (the only external link). I have no proof, but I have a feeling "Violetta" was an elaborate hoax from the beginning. How does she balance on that stool? In one of the photos in the first link I provided, note that the stool is about how long her legs would be. I have legs, and I can't balance on that. I suspect trick photography and/or mirrors. She's a non-notable sideshow performer, and possibly not a real one. I encountered this article a while ago while cleaning up Category:Possibly living people, which included her at the time. Who knows why I didn't nominate it for deletion then. WP:INTERESTING, maybe? szyslak 20:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Although limbless people do exist, there is little of note here, and this ultimately should be deleted per WP:INTERESTING. I guess that's why we have Ripley's Believe It or Not!: Wikipedia is not a directory of all information ever, as per WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, so Ripley's, Cryptozoology blogs and Conservapedia exist to cover the strange, the dubious, and the crackpots. Freshacconci 20:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Even if she does have limbs and was faking being limbless in the photos, that has no direct relation to WP:BIO.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't arguing for deletion on the basis of "Violetta" being a possible hoax. If she were a Wikipedia hoax, that would be a different story. I just brought up that possibility as part of a larger argument about notability. As in, a sideshow act from the 1920s isn't notable, and certainly not a fake sideshow act. Just because WP:BIO doesn't specifically mention that possibility doesn't mean it's not relevant. szyslak 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, the subjects of most of these articles are notable. However, there are thousands of people who have performed in sideshows, most of them not notable. szyslak 00:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I now find this source initially published in London Life magazine January 27, 1940, which features an extended description of her act. Noting that even if she is a hoax (which I don't believe she is) we have an entire Category:Hoaxes and the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Otto4711 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • See my comment above. szyslak 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is copied from the german WP, and they are rather good at keeping hoaxes out. They are also have stricter standards than we usually do about human interest articles, and I would defer to their judgment when they keep one in. (They do seem to have a peculiar habit of not bothering to source their articles) DGG 00:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Personal pages are not RS, but the fact that many people are still interested in her so many ears after seems to be indentification of some level of notability. Therefor, week keep I'll say. Kneiphof 07:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I find there is a problem with verification still, which over-rides other considerations, though I would like the article to be kept otherwise. Tyrenius 12:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Otto found a source... but even from that source I see no evidence that this would ever be more than a microstub. With so little reliable info to start from, I don't think we should cover the subject. (I don't think the hoax issue is important, but the depth of coverage here is pathetic.) Mangojuicetalk 16:52, 25 June 2007 (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.