Talk:Debbie Liebling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia. | ||
 |
Debbie Liebling is part of WikiProject South Park, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to South Park. If you wish to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
Contents |
[edit] Debbie Liebling
A tag has been placed on Debbie Liebling, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.
Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, article #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. jesup 04:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of db-bio
As per above, do NOT remove db-bio yourself. If you want to avoid early deletion, use {{hangon}} and continue fixing the article. I note that the WP:PEACOCK is already fixed, but this bio still fails the Notability test. Also, given the earlier edits, it seems to be possible that the page is being inserted by an agent or PR firm, though that is far from certain, and I realize I may be giving insufficient assumption of good faith. (However, looking at the editors of the page, and the other pages they've edited, and the peacock wording used, it seems possible.) jesup 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- A different person removed the db-bio, which is allowed (I believe the anon-IP user is the same as the creator of the page). I do believe that being an "executive vice president" is pretty iffy as far as notability goes, but perhaps I'm wrong. The original version was (in addition to being very low on content) strongly laudatory (WP:PEACOCK). So, I'd suggest making it a good bio page if it's notable, or deleting it if it's not. Note that local politicians (who pass laws) often aren't considered notable, nor often are challengers. Even some challengers for US House seats have been deemed non-notable - "come back when they're elected" (paraphrase). I'll nominate it on AfD for others who know more to judge. The best way to avoid deletion will be to make it a good, notable, proper bio of a living person entry. jesup 18:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hollywood Reporter reference
The Hollywood Reporter reference is a real article and not a press release. The Hollywood Reporter doesn't do press releases. The free preview confirms Liebling is primary subject of the article and confirms her position at 20th Century Fox and notability. This article listing that shows reporter name is here (first listing)--> [1] --Oakshade 18:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Removed it again because the only preview (non-pay) content available is word-for-word in the first article (Variety), and given how it's written that quoted content appears to be a typical press release. No non-subscriber will be able to access anything beyond that, and since it's fully part of the first article, and the first has more info besides, the Hollywood Reporter citation is not needed. jesup 01:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- In fact it's not a press release. It's even credited to a reporter. Just because you think it "appears to be a typical press release" is your POV. --Oakshade 01:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I won't remove it again (WP:3R); and disagreement is not vandalism; please don't make threats (WP:AGF). Perhaps there's a longer story behind the paid-sub gate, but as I said, the only info in the preview is exactly the info in the first cite, and I'll eat my hat if that text wasn't quoted from a press release. :-) Regardless of where the text comes from, it's the same text, and so doesn't add anything for the reader. jesup 01:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- It was not meant to come across as a threat and in the spirit of WP:AAGF,I struck the vandalism comments (see talk page). I'm actually familiar with some of that reporter's work on stories that I know were objective. Highly unlikely that he would write a press release and credit it as an actual independent story. I do wish I had access to the full article just for solidifying this. Although Daily Variety and the Hollywood Reporter frequently report the same stories, they are independent of each other and are famous rivals. Citing both shows "multiple sources". --Oakshade 01:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect that both papers ran an article based on a press release from Fox, which they quoted, which is why both have the same text apparently, at least in part. Not exactly uncommon. jesup 02:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- It was not meant to come across as a threat and in the spirit of WP:AAGF,I struck the vandalism comments (see talk page). I'm actually familiar with some of that reporter's work on stories that I know were objective. Highly unlikely that he would write a press release and credit it as an actual independent story. I do wish I had access to the full article just for solidifying this. Although Daily Variety and the Hollywood Reporter frequently report the same stories, they are independent of each other and are famous rivals. Citing both shows "multiple sources". --Oakshade 01:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I won't remove it again (WP:3R); and disagreement is not vandalism; please don't make threats (WP:AGF). Perhaps there's a longer story behind the paid-sub gate, but as I said, the only info in the preview is exactly the info in the first cite, and I'll eat my hat if that text wasn't quoted from a press release. :-) Regardless of where the text comes from, it's the same text, and so doesn't add anything for the reader. jesup 01:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just because a reference is not available over the internet for free is not a reason to remove it. Citations to printed books is encouraged. Citations to the free version is better that a citation to the for pay version, but the content is what is really important. Bejnar 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- In fact it's not a press release. It's even credited to a reporter. Just because you think it "appears to be a typical press release" is your POV. --Oakshade 01:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Marry references to text
Could someone marry the references to the text, and make the footnoting consistent? See, for example, Footnotes. Bejnar 18:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
