Talk:Jenna Miscavige Hill
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
|
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[edit] I don't know what prior message
I don't know what prior message mean by "redirect on non-existing page". There are of course empty studs wiki links that need time to finish. Wiki pages are full of inter links that do not exist, which encourage people to write the topic. As for the wikinews tag, it's a direct tag copied from a completed article. It doesn't turn up as expected, needing time to fix, and usually editors come in to help rather than delete it.
- The reason it was deleted before was that someone moved the article to Jenna Miscavige Hill where it was then deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion, A7, for not establashing a claim to notability. As that article was then deleted, the redirect from the move was then pointing at the deleted page and so was deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion, R1. As it is, I think it just about passes A7 personally, but might not survive a deletion process. I would recommend you add a few more sources to establish notability in order for this to be kept; for now I've just added the {{notability}} tag to alert other editors that this may not meet the criteria. It is not a deletion proposal, but I've added this to my watchlist to keep tabs on it, see whether it will pass the criteria at a later date.
- On an unrelated note, could you please sign your posts by typing four tildas at the end of your posts on talk pages? Just like the following: ~~~~. It makes identification of the author of comments infinitely easier. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] notibility
She is certainly notable. She is the niece of the head of a religion with many members all over the world. Her parents and herself leave the church, which is significant events. New York Post is a very reliable source, you can check the Wikipedia page about it. The wikinews cited is also a well written article, objectively passed all the wikinews scrutiny, with the NYP and supporting sources. The only challenge is the length and the number of reliable sources. By definition these have nothing to do with notability, unless we are playing the numbers game. Hope I'm entering this in the right place. Anwk (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've added a few more refs, which should take care of the notability problem. The next step is to use them as <ref>notes</ref> to source paragraphs. AndroidCat (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
