Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eda Pepi

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. Sr13 06:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eda Pepi

Eda Pepi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Impressive college record, but notability not established yet. Reads like a résumé/CV for jobhunting. Clicketyclack 06:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BIO. Clearly does not pass WP:PROF and is only "an aspirating actress". No objections against speedy deletion per A7, because the article does not assert any real encyclopedic notability.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Asserts local notability, but that does not satisfy the guidelines of WP:BIO. No significant professional credits. DarkAudit 13:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO as notability not sufficiently established at this time Duke of Whitstable 15:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It reads somewhat like a CV because private information are omitted, date and place of birth for example. It should be noted that I do not intend this to be a CV/resume as she doesn't need one. I created this entry so people have an easier time searching her info as some host site for her pass work/achievement have already closed down or removed the page. WannabeAmatureHistorian
    • That sounds like a textbook case of WP:USEFUL, which is not a valid reason for inclusion. If she needs this info posted for potential employers to find, take it elsewhere. Wikipedia is not Google. DarkAudit 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as contend verification, just about everything I wrote can be verified, no exaggeration was employed. Her work on women in Nepal is not in the public domain and I can't locate it, it is either hold by herself or Harvard.
    • Then there are no verifiable and reliable sources for that information. An inaccessible source is no source at all. DarkAudit 17:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have checked out Wikibios and no offense, but most of the entries there read like joke, a Wiki MySpace. Assuming there is no gap between Wikipedia and Wikibios, people whose achievement is above most Wikibios’ people should be in Wikipedia. WannabeAmatureHistorian

  • There is a monumental gap between Wikibios and Wikipedia. There is no connection between the two whatsoever except the use of the term 'Wiki'. It doesn't appear that the people at Wikibios are even using wiki software. WP:BIO is the guideline we use. She does not meet those guidelines. DarkAudit 17:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, but accomplishment does not equal notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, delete the entry if it suits you. I don't know whether it is Wiki's lack of server space or some questionable policy, but Wikipedian seem to spend too much time policing new entries instead of maintaining existing entries. I have come across a number of historical entries that severely lack objective reference. This also raise the issue of double (or multiple) standards as old entries are not subject to the same scrutiny as new entries, a result of the longevity sensitive selection policy. The longer an article exists, the more it is assumed to be correct.WannabeAmatureHistorian

Yes, we know all too well that this isn't the only article out there that doesn't meet our criteria. There is no double standard; any article brought up on AFD or examined by an administrator for speedy deletion has the same standards on which it's judged. There are more articles being created all the time, and it takes less time to create an article than it does to objectively reach consensus on one. Certainly, I've recently voted on articles that were created in 2004. If you want more information, please read the guide to deletion. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:BIO. If kept, please change "aspirating" to "aspiring" - "aspirating" means "sucking". --Charlene 04:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    no please don't! that's my favorite part! Pete.Hurd 05:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Clearly I am a bad speller. I should double check next time when Word corrects the spelling for me. :)
  • Delete the article and see what we can do about making the original person go away as well. In an edit comment trying to justify the article, uploader (presumably the same person) says "There are some less important people with entry on Wiki, old movie star from the early 20th centur..." which is a sentence that cannot end with anything other than sheer rage against the ego and ignorance of the writer. Facts are any old movie star from any time is far more significant than this airhead with no professional credits to her name. DreamGuy 09:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Do you know why I didn't repost that comment and instead post the one above? Because it is not nice or polite to talk that way about people even if they are dead. And why don’t you finish that sentence because as I recall, it ends on the note that their movies are difficult to locate and rarely showed. And you don’t you get it, I am not Pepi, if I am, do you think I would have made that spelling mistake or unable to locate her work? I have to say you are a bit snobbish going around advocating the removal of new account just because they disagree with you. WannabeAmatureHistorian
  • Comment When this one goes, kill off Image:Eda-Hair-temperately-black-for-a-theater-production.jpg (and a duplicate Image:Eda Hair Temperately Black For A Theater Production.jpg) as well... it's falsely tagged public domain under the argument that it never had a copyright (huh?) and the license says use for whatever you want but the upload note say not for anything commercial... Mistagged and useless once the article is gone. DreamGuy 09:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, please remove the two duplicated pictures once the article is deleted. The second images is a further compressed version of the first one at 1/3 its size. I have meant to replace the first one but can’t find the choice to delete it. It is in public domain because I released it but I don’t want it to be use for other purpose other than this article. If you are going to explain things nicely, please do so, but go around picking on people even if you are an accomplished Wikipedian. WannabeAmatureHistorian
  • Delete Sorry kiddo, come back in a few years. --Infrangible 19:13, 13 May 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.