Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jude Stringfellow
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 DELETE per discussion below. A REDIRECT in place of the article seems like a good idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jude Stringfellow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Delete self-published author written by a WP:COI account, no evidence of notability and if this author is notable, why don't we know the date, year, and place of birth - red flags of non-notability. Carlossuarez46 16:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Zouavman Le Zouave 17:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no assertion of notability. — Wenli (contribs) 01:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Date of birth: 11/22/1961 Oklhoma City, Oklahoma. HOW DARE YOU SAY that self published authors aren't notable! Some of us have sold many more books than the authors in regular houses. I've been featured on Oprah, Montel, in more than 100 magazines around the world, and on more than 100 tv shows, newspapers, newsletters, and radio shows around the world. I know I'm not suppose to say anything because I'm the person in mention, but how dare anyone of you JUDGE as to who is notable. It's the internet - not your private party. What arrogance! I'm a member of the National Speakers Association as well, does that count or am I at your mercy - some group of guys who think they have more rights than others. Wow, I hope I never have to be called upon to JUDGE your success. I'll just pray for you instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstringfellow (talk • contribs) 03:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It would be immensely more helpful if you could find it in your heart to be civil and provide us with references to some of these 100 magazines around the world. Spitting vitriol won't help your position here. In any event, please review Wikpedia's (not "the internet") guidelines for notability of people and Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiabilty. I personally believe you're almost there, you just need to give verifiable secondary sources. Into The Fray T/C 04:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I realize that it is impossible to truly verify usernames when they claim to be a specific person, I do believe it is worth noting that I have actually seen the Oprah show that this person was on (the dog is so cute!) and I went to the person's blog, [1] and from that entry, it really does not remotely "sound" like the person using that username here on Wikipedia is Jude Stringfellow. The blog is without question, written by the author of the book, and she does not use all caps, or type in the same manner as this username has done. Nor does she really have any problem with the deletion of this article, as stated on that blog: "We have enjoyed her stay on Wikipedia, but to be honest it doesn't make or break her abilities to be presented in public, or to be beneficial to anyone." Further, she flat out states that this username is not her at the top of the blog entry. Again, fully realizing there's no way to verify it, the comparison of the writing styles of this username with the real person's blog, are sufficiently different that I personally do not believe that the username claiming to be the author, actually is. Aside from all of that, I believe that the article on the dog is notable enough, and perhaps the information regarding Jude Stringfellow should simply be merged into that article. Ariel♥Gold 14:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just read the blog entitled 'Wikipedia Queens'. The writing may be a little more considered in tone, but the spirit is not so different. The subject's involvement in the article seems implicit, at least. The offense which they seem to have taken, even on the blog, is surprising for someone who is a writer and teacher--one would expect an understanding of an editorial process which strives, imperfectly, to uphold impartiality through the use of reliable sources and the discouragement of autobiography. This is proper for an encyclopedic venture. JNW 14:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I doubt we'll ever be able to say conclusively, nor is it really germane to the conversation here whether or not Jstringfellow is indeed Jude Stringfellow. It's clear that Ms. Stringfellow is saying it's not her and that there were multiple edits where JStringfellow said they were her and, as such, I've listed Jstringfellow on an admin noticeboard with some useful links. The mean-spiritedness of both the persona and the person are vexing to me but, other than that, whether one = other is immaterial. Into The Fray T/C 14:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just read the blog entitled 'Wikipedia Queens'. The writing may be a little more considered in tone, but the spirit is not so different. The subject's involvement in the article seems implicit, at least. The offense which they seem to have taken, even on the blog, is surprising for someone who is a writer and teacher--one would expect an understanding of an editorial process which strives, imperfectly, to uphold impartiality through the use of reliable sources and the discouragement of autobiography. This is proper for an encyclopedic venture. JNW 14:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I realize that it is impossible to truly verify usernames when they claim to be a specific person, I do believe it is worth noting that I have actually seen the Oprah show that this person was on (the dog is so cute!) and I went to the person's blog, [1] and from that entry, it really does not remotely "sound" like the person using that username here on Wikipedia is Jude Stringfellow. The blog is without question, written by the author of the book, and she does not use all caps, or type in the same manner as this username has done. Nor does she really have any problem with the deletion of this article, as stated on that blog: "We have enjoyed her stay on Wikipedia, but to be honest it doesn't make or break her abilities to be presented in public, or to be beneficial to anyone." Further, she flat out states that this username is not her at the top of the blog entry. Again, fully realizing there's no way to verify it, the comparison of the writing styles of this username with the real person's blog, are sufficiently different that I personally do not believe that the username claiming to be the author, actually is. Aside from all of that, I believe that the article on the dog is notable enough, and perhaps the information regarding Jude Stringfellow should simply be merged into that article. Ariel♥Gold 14:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It would be immensely more helpful if you could find it in your heart to be civil and provide us with references to some of these 100 magazines around the world. Spitting vitriol won't help your position here. In any event, please review Wikpedia's (not "the internet") guidelines for notability of people and Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiabilty. I personally believe you're almost there, you just need to give verifiable secondary sources. Into The Fray T/C 04:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Well, I did my level best. Based on this: [2] and this [3], I'd even go speedy now. Into The Fray T/C 04:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per above, WP:COI. Vanity article. JNW 04:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notable only for her dog Faith, whose article I have just argued should be retained. SolidPlaid 05:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While self published people can be notable, it's not typical (after all, if you were notable, wouldn't you have signed a deal with a publisher?). That said, it requires reliable sources to establish that notability, and this article has none. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 06:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonnotable, no reliable sources. NawlinWiki 16:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not independently notable, and apparently itching to get onto BADSITES. --Dhartung | Talk 18:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, or, optionally, redirect to the Faith (dog) article. RFerreira 04:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect, it's the dog that has the notability. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.