Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ms Divine

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ms Divine

This was originally speedy deleted per A7 after a brief AfD yesterday. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure) However the user put up quite a number of good arguments and after discussing the issue with LunaSantin, I decided to make a second AfD has been made. Nishkid64 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Procedural note: The article Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure was also originally linked to this afd and presumably nominated for deletion discussion.

Also, Ms._Divine's_Tee_Hee_Hee_Heure_(Short_sketch_one-lady_films) should be included in the nom as a essentially a shorter version of the other Tee Hee Hee article. Bwithh 12:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The performance artist Ms Divine is a director/actress and she and her films are listed in the movie guide. 'Do Not Delete' Here are the links again with reference and proof of notablility for Ms. Divine

Ms. Divine listed in the New York Times - http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=454333

Ms. Divine listed in IMDB (Internet Movie Database) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2345632/

Ms. Divine listed in All Movie Guide - http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=2:454333

Ms. Divine's film at the Pioneer Theatre http://www.twoboots.com/pioneer/monthly_programs/2005-11.htm

I also have the official website as well.

She also currently has several movies in the works on her official website. The internet movie database which is a very popular movie guide has her listed because their site encompasses a body of useful information. That's why people frequent that site so much, because they find information that is not always that easy to find.

In addition to Ms. Divine being a director/actress, she also has her local TV show as well. That is why there were 2 articles, one for Ms. Divine and one for Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure.

The Television network that her show airs on is supported by TimeWarner Cable and RCN Cable, under a franchise agreement with the City of New York. Which means that is a legit channel accessible to all cable customers.

Her program is listed in the guide at http://www.mnn.org/viewers/schedule On the drop down menu for channel selection select "TW 67/16 RCN 86"; For Time select Mon 10/16 scroll down to the time 10:30pm and you will see the program listing for the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure..

The other program is listed under http://www.qptv.org/iq/ProgramGuide/ChannelListings/tabid/95/Default.aspx Select Monday then scroll down to the time 8:30pm, on channel 34 You will see Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure listed there. Also select Wednesday then scroll down to 1:30pm on channel 56, again you will see the program listed there.

There are other programs that air on these channels that are defined in wikipedia. There are people out there that want to know and read more about these programs. That is one of the reasons why i took the time to write the articles. PeterWeller 01:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: PeterWeller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Strong Keep The external links provided seem to point to valid websites that people do trust and turn to for accurate information. For e.g., the New York Times, IMDB.com and local tv guides, are all well-known, well-regarded and well-trusted sites. She is listed for a reason...for public consumption and apparently that makes her a public figure and therefore is very notable. Plus, who is to say that she is not famous just for being associated with other "famous" people...what makes a person who has dated a quasi-celebrity (for e.g. a reality tv "star"), a celebrity by association and therefore newsworthy? I can list many examples of the case of celebrity be association...at least Ms. Divine actually has a growing list of interviews with public figures and a large body of work that has been featured on television and in theatres.

--User:Workofordaman 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)— Workofordaman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Aren't all of those movie links listing the exact same movie? --Wafulz 012:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

2 of the links are linking to that movie. The other internet links to her - http://imdb.com/name/nm2345632/ I put those links up there, for there are external links that validate Ms. Divine and her films.

• Strong Delete as encyclopedically non-notable public access channel filmmaker. To address the external links: 1) It's easy to get listed in the All Movie Guide[1]. The only criteria is that the film product has to be commercially available in the country of release. That's it. If it's a theatrical film not available as a video or DVD, all you need to do is send them a press kit - so even easier 2)The New York Times film database is taken from The All Movie Guide[2]. Main difference is that a "readers' review" forum is allowed so that indie filmmakers and friends can post vanity reviews of their own films. (Nice touch with the "only" 4 star gushy review but then the effect is spoilt with three 5 star gushy reviews) [3]. 3)It's not that hard to get into the IMDB (possibly even easier than it is to get on Amazon.com). IMDB is a database with barriers to entry that are as low or almost as low as the All Movie Guide, and which is not well policed. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Nguyen_(Second_Nomination) for instance. 4) The Pioneer Theater also has bracingly low barriers to entry for film screenings[4]. Good for them, but this does not make it a good reference for encyclopedic notability. 5) As for the qptv and manhattan neighborhood network showings - the whole point of these public access channels is that ANYONE living locally can have a chance to show their program at some point. The city authorities made the cable tv companies support these "community" channels in return for letting them dig up neighborhood streets to lay cable pipes. I've occasionally come across some entertaining stuff on MNN e.g. silly "opera" staged and sung with cuddly toy animals; raw unedited amateur footage of hot European fashion shows - but basically there's no quality or content control whatsoever... anyone can stage a show and pretend to be an expert at whatever or use it as platform for their unusual political/religious views or to show off their "unique art" or whatever Bwithh 02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, local cable shows fail notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, First my article is for Ms. Divine who is a performance artist NOT a public access channel filmmmaker. I was asked to proove her notability, so I proved it by providing those external links. Those links describe her diversity, which includes filmmaker/actress.

IMDB - Internet movie database is a popular database. If it has such low criteria as you stated, you would see all sorts of "bogus movies". That seems to be your opionion about IMDB than what you actually see. For instance, wikipedia has more bogus entries than Internet movie database.

Also the movie is mentioned in the New York Times, would you say that is bogus too?

The idea of wikipedia which is a user defined encylopedia is for users to access information that they want to find. Writing my article for Ms. Divine and Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure, does just that.

There are many Public TV shows that are long running and have gained cult status. What about Democracy Now by Amy Goodman. That is also a Public TV show. Should you then go and delete that entry? If this show is about "rubbish" as the user previously stated, then how did her movie and her work get accepted to Internet Movie database and to the local theatre.

And most importantly this discussion is also for the performance artist Ms. Divine not just for her show. As mentioned before I have proved her notablitity and existance from the links shown. PeterWeller 02:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)PeterWeller

Democracy Now is broadcast on over 500+ radio and tv stations in North America[5]. It also has established standards of content submission rather than an open access free-for-all. I already explained where the NYTimes listing comes from and about the theater and IMDB. Wikipedia has more intensive content policing that IMDB but also covers vastly more numerous subjects. I didn't say everything on public access is rubbish. I specifically said there is some stuff which is quite entertaining - this doesnt make it encyclopedically notable. Finally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine or a directory. Bwithh 03:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Democracy Now started as a very small independant media and then grew. The New York Times listed the movie because it is a valid movie that aired in a theatre. That prooves the notability.

There are more mistakes in wikipedia than I have seen in IMDB which makes me feel that IMDB's criteria is much higher. Determining what's notable has already been prooven with the links. The person does exist, she has an audience and her work is on display on all sorts of media ranging from TV to the internet to local theatres. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia where you can find information about subjects, especially hard to find subjects such as this underground performance artist. It seems to me that wikipedia is just for defining pop culture. PeterWeller 03:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)PeterWeller

"It seems to me that wikipedia is just for defining pop culture". Um... a lot of effort goes into trying not to be that. Anyway aren't you contradicting yourself by identifying with pop culture. And I look forward to the day when Ms. Divine is broadcast regularly and frequently on 500 stations all over a continent. I'm already gone over the issue with All Media Guide/NYTimes. And yes, NYTimes operates a local listing service which includes the Pioneer Theater. This doesnt prove encyclopedic notabilityBwithh 03:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Now it appears to me that wikipedia is there for pop culture. At the time that I did this article I thought wikipedia was for providing information about all sorts of topics which included information about underground artists. Sort of like finding information about topics ranging from general to obscure. If the Wikipedia authors are too narrow-minded and are unable to respect art, then wikipedia shall always remain a stagnant "closed off" encylopedia. Thankfully the artist has established her own underground audience.

• Strong Keep

The Pioneer Theater has high standards for feature movies. I saw the Bank Heist Movie in the Pioneer Theater. The theater has HIGHER standards than a commercial movie theater which only accepts movies based on their expected profit margin. The standard in question being a creative standard not a commercial one. They do no accept homemade movies, a lot of people tried that already - it does not work that way. On Public Access shows - Quite a few of them are far more entertaining and creative then the junk that gets passed as entertainment in US networks.

Deleting this article is equivalent to pandering to what Big Movie Studios Television Networks deem to be acceptable viewing. The fact is corporate media is filled with garbage shows with no real actors - just reality shows that are fed to the masses who watch anything on the networks.. A few numbers down and you get public television that features struggling artists trying to get their work out. So the morons who act in realty shows are notable? What a joke! In effect no independent film artist can be notable unless they appear in corporate media. Yippee Congrats Wikepidia...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlos00001 (talk • contribs) .— Carlos00001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Carlos00001 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, personally I'd delete 90% of the reality tv show contestants, and 60% of the reality tv shows, but popularity counts for a lot on Wikipedia. As for struggling artists, win a well-recognized & well-established award at an indie film festival or distribute online and get good reviews by well-known critics and you'll have a solid standing on Wikipedia. Bwithh 03:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok- so essentially what I just said. Win an award from Corporate Media (do you know what indie film festival is?!). Sure. By the way the show is quite popular online from what I've seen. But its good to know what Wikepidia accepts. I will remember that you guys only accept what what is popular. So I don't need to come to this site ever again to find out something, since I can get all my answers to popular stuff elsewhere. Thanks.

Carlos00001 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd really like to give this one a chance, but I don't see evidence of real notability at this time. The media mentions seem to be just "drive-bys" rather than featuring this individual or her product. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article doesn't seem to demonstrate notability on the part of the person, despite the fight that was put up to keep it from being deleted. It sounds a lot like a vanity/self-promotion page. I don't see any reason to keep it at this time.--MonkBirdDuke 08:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh and MonkBirdDuke. Reeks of WP:VAIN. --Aaron 12:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, although I'm more troubled by the attempt to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is deluded

The only reason I even signed up to make a comment was that I happened to notice the deletion notice and the invitation to comment. I decided to comment because I had seen some of her work. A search for Ms Divine on Google brings her website and this entry only appears afterwards so I doubt if she needs Wikepidia for promotion as one of your sagacious administrators claims. You admin people are clearly deluded, for I am not part of an drive by user or whatever ridiculous terms you assign to me.

I find it quite offensive too that you add that belittling little comment at the end of my username after clearly posting a link that regular users can comment on this.

I hope other regular users who read my comment (if it is not deleted) will refrain from adding anything to this stupid one-sided discussion among the narrowminded people who administrate the wikepidia.

I also urge the original poster who put up the original content to ignore this site and to remove all content from it- this site is clearly not meant to be a free encyclopedia

And this is not the only blatant deletion I have observed: An interesting piece on possible plagiarism by Albert Einstein at this site was suddenly deleted with no explanation given despite this information existing (and being confirmed) on other sites. (Even as an allegation this charge is quite 'notable')

I would advise Wikepidia to close off these discussions from the public since these do nothing but reveal the administrators blatant disregard for their general users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.105.38 (talk • contribs)

Any encyclopedia has to have guidelines and regulations as to what can be placed on the website and what can not. That's why this AfD was created in the first place. There was a little disagreement on my part regarding the deletion of the article after bearing witness to some of PeterWeller's arguments. That's why I made this AfD. Do not put the blame on the administrators, when this AfD is here so that anyone in the community can add thoughtful and meaningful discussion to the page. Nishkid64 23:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

incidentally, a google search browse for the einstein plagiarism issue suggests that this is an ugly anti-semitic rumour fabricated by white supremacist groups Bwithh 01:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep

Issues of notability and validity with regard to my 2 articles

My first article was for the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee HEure. Some have argued saying that Public access channels are not valid thus the show is not valid. This is an ignorant statement to assume.To brush the matter off as a simple local channel show, shows a lack of respect and a lack of understanding of the importance of these channels and the role it plays in the community and culture of New York.

The Television network that her show airs on is supported by TimeWarner Cable and RCN Cable, under a franchise agreement with the City of New York. Which means that is a legit channel accessible to all cable customers. The reason I choose to write about this show, is because it is a show that has been running for the past 4 years, and has maintained an underground audience. I looked up the criteria for notablity in wiki and it states that it is notable if it has some sort of underground audience. Not many shows have done that. This show exists, is long running and has a cult audience and thus deserves notability.

There is a page in wiki on public access TV right? Is it not appropriate and perfectly NOTABLE for the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure to be mentioned as an example? And if so, would that not justify a page to link to the show to present the type of stuff they play on public access?

That seems reasonable to me. Also, it is a matter of New York TV, culture and art, particularly Queens and Manhattan. This is NOT about promotion or PROFIT. One wiki admin states that he is "worried" by the Selfpromotion and vanity. Nice snide remark but still not one of logic. Perhaps what one should be concerned about is the biasness that is related to "notability", and the other inaccuracies that plague wikipedia's articles, such as False information. The blatant self promotion that I see is more often in the profile of admin users, who list all these things in their profiles when in actuality they are not notable. Not to mention the obvious cooperate promotion that exists here. See more below for what I am referring to.

This article was written to present users with articles and information that they can find out about. I am arguing my points because its a matter of principal, and I do not believe that deleting both pages is justifiable. And yes, I am determined to atleast state my points before leaving.

Plus there are pages in wiki about bands (Front 242 , Devo

Devo,(http://www.mutatovisual.com/beautifulmutants/reports/fuse/html/gvc_intrv.html) Gary Numan, Lloyd Kaufman that have that have been interviewed by Ms. Divine and have been a part of the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure. So why can't the show be notable as it presents the users with information about the show that the artists have been guests of.

My second article was about the performer Ms. Divine who is the producer of this long running TV show comedy and in addition to that, she has been making numerous sketch films (one of which is listed in IMDB) that aired in local theatres, television and available thru various internet sites. She also has interviewed the above mentioned bands. She also as an established online presence. Ms. Divine is an all-round comedic performer and has gained an underground audience throughout the years, that's why I defined her as a performance artist and felt the article would be quite informative.

This article was not up for deletion at at all and was hastily deleted after the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure was deleted.

Again there are articles in wiki about independant performers, sketch comedians and thus it is perfectly NOTABLE for Ms. Divine's to be mentioned as an example and thus justify a page to explain the sort of stuff that she does.

To submit proof of her film and of her, I enclosed the external links (with the exclusion of the official site) for Internet Movie Database, the listing in the NY times and the listing the theatre. These links listed her movie and also listed her credits and bio which included director/actress etc. which is more proof to my article where I write that she is a diverse performance artist.

The links are not simply "passing links", if you look at the links carefully it is more than a simply listing, it contains more information. Please refer to the bottom of the page where i have enclosed the details of the link

One wiki admin author states that Internet Movie Database is not valid for anyone can submit information. That statement is NOT true. Just go to the site imdb.com and see how many "Bogus" INVALID articles that you find. Probably none. Thus IMDB has valid selection criteria. However, take a look at wikipedia and you will find a a good number of BOGUS and INVALID articles written. Thus one can conclude that it is wikipedia that has a much higher chance of NOT being credible. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that all of wikipedia is wrong, but we all know there are many inconsistencies and false facts in wikipedia.

In addition to that, the same wiki author states that Pioneer Theatre in New york City has low standards. That is a matter of opinion. The Pioneer Theatre is a legit theatre. They obviously do not accept just anything. They are known to promote the works of independant artists. Try submitting a bogus film to Pioneer or a home video. It will NOT get accepted. To slander a theatre without knowing how it really works shows a lack of knowledge and an ability to understand art.

The same wiki author tries to discredit the New York Times listing of Ms. Divine and her movie. The movie is valid and so is she. How many "false' listing have you come across in the NY TIMEs listing database. Now again compare the NY times database that to wikipedia, you will see that wikipedia always has more bogus articles than ever. Why not spend more effort in correcting these inconsistencies instead of spending time in deleting a page such as this that has validity and is LEGIT and NOTABLE.

I understand that there are many people who falsify documents and articles in wikipedia, so i can see why articles need to be investigated. However, i am not trying to do that. Ms. Divine is a legit peformance artist. The links that I have provided from various EXTERNAL sites proove that. However to dismiss the links as not notable has become more like a form of bias. The Wiki biography states once again that it is notable if the person has an underground audience. Thus the artist does fit that criteria. She obviously has a long running TV show and movies that have been acknowledged and validated via the links that I have sent were just some examples.

If wikipedia is going to continue their policy of their so-called "notablity" by only relying on cooporate entities to define what music is, or what artists are. Then wikipedia is living in a very "closed box" for they FAIL to understand the valuable contributions that independant artists have made. Not only that, but wiki shows no respect for people that want to find out about these contributions. The subject of notability appears to be more of an "opinion" among the wiki admins than that of reason or logic.

Apparantly defining Lionel Richie's daughter, Nicole richie is considered notable. Defining Hilton sisters is notable. Wikipedia is not a unique online site that encompasses a wide variety of topics. It is an online site that obeys co-operate media for wiki feels Paris Hilton is legit because co-operate media said so and thus she is notable? Thus wikipedia endorses cooperate promotion But yet, defining an independant artist is "non-notable" despite the fact that I have backed my article with various links that prooves her works, her existence etc..

There are many bands and topics that are defined in wikipedia that do not have any backing of external links, yet these articles continue to exist.

Wikipedia is an online Enclyopedia, its supposed to be an online site that amasses a large amount of information. People would want to use a system like that, to find articles on topics especially obscure topics that they can't always get their hands on. That is why I choose to write my 2 articles on the performance artist and the show. However, if the article is going to be deleted, then what use is wikipedia to the segment of the population that is trying to research hard to find items. Anybody can find out about Paris Hilton. There are millions of articles all over the web about that person.

Thus wikipedia is not unique in the way that it claims to be. It still contains lots of false information. It still only defines items that most people already know about. It doesn't serve as a source of information where one can find the answers to unqiue topics. Not only that, but many of these wikipedian authors or so called admins (I by no means mean that all admins are bad), appear to gleefully enjoy this "authority" of deleting articles, without using any kind of valid reason. Repeating "notability" like a parrot is not a valid point. Some of their reasons are irrelevant and mean spirited showing a complete lack of professional journalism and utter biasness. And these are the people behind wikipedia. Truly Pathetic! This only serves to impede the development of wikipedia even more. Thus users who want to find information about unique topics and artists will look elsewhere, for wikipedia has failed to provide that information to users.

It would be great if there were any admins out there with an open mind who can understand these points and is willing to KEEP the article. I am also very open to improving the article, categorizing etc etc.

Special thanks to Nish (one of the administrators) who was open-minded enough to re-open this article up for debate, and giving me the chance to express how I feel about that. Thank you very much...

And also thanks to all for taking the time to read my points. I do appreciate it very much. Have a good day. - Peter Weller

PS -

The zoologist Desmond Morris who wrote the book "the Human Zoo" provides some interesting insightful observations about the creative individual. I feel this quote is very appropriate.

"The creative talent will therefore find himself alternately praised and damned by society in a bewildering way, and will be constantly in doubt about this acceptance by the rest of the community:" Desmond Morris (The Human Zoo, Chapter 12)

Thus inorder for the creative talented individual to be accepted, society must evolve first..

NOTES I have just re-listed a small portion of the links for quick reference and easier accessiblity. I think previously I didn't list the link that had the most details. Thus Please visit links again

---

Ms. Divine bio credits and film listed in the New York Times -

http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=339446

Ms. Divine bio and film listed in IMDB (Internet Movie Database) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2345632/bio

Ms. Divine's film at the Pioneer Theatre http://www.twoboots.com/pioneer/monthly_programs/2005-11.htm

Ms. Divine's Official site http://www.msdivine.net

Ms. Divine's Tee Heure w/ Devo featured artist on Devo's official page. http://www.mutatovisual.com/beautifulmutants/reports/fuse/html/gvc_intrv.html

Listing of program Her program is listed in the guide at http://www.mnn.org/viewers/schedule On the drop down menu for channel selection select "TW 67/16 RCN 86"; For Time select Mon

10/16 scroll down to the time 10:30pm and you will see the program listing for the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure..

The other program is listed under http://www.qptv.org/iq/ProgramGuide/ChannelListings/tabid/95/Default.aspx Select Monday then scroll down to the time 8:30pm, on channel 34 You will see Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure listed there. Also select Wednesday then scroll down to 1:30pm on channel 56, again you will see the program listed there.

---

PeterWeller 02:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)PeterWeller

Note: User:PeterWeller's second vote. -Elmer Clark 02:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: User:PeterWeller's third vote. Ohconfucius 06:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No indication of notability. None of the sites you mentioned seek to screen their entries by notability. Several independent filmmakers I know, whose work is extremely obscure and has been seen only at very small local screenings (and in no way qualifies for Wikipedia inclusion), have entries at IMDB and the other sites. Inclusion on those sites have never been considered criteria for inclusion. Public access shows, as has been mentioned, are also not any sort of indicator of notability, nor is acting in local, non-distributed films. Peter, it sounds like you take issue with Wikipedia's notability guidelines in general. This is by no means the place to try to change them -- try the Talk page at Wikipedia:Notability. Under the current notability criteria, which the majority of Wikipedians agree with, Ms. Divine is not notable. Sorry. -Elmer Clark 02:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Also, since the topic was broached, Wikipedia is a community, not an island of one. I get rankled at the suggestion that I am "close-minded" simply because I do not agree with the article's creator. Also, agreed about the odious Einstein rumor. Johnbrownsbody 11:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh. *drew 11:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep All this interest alone should be enough to satisfy the notable criteria. Alpharigel 18:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm.... do you actually read the discussion or do you just judge visually by the amount of text you see on screen? Bwithh 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Bwithh, that is a blatant assumption of bad faith and borderline WP:PA. --Marriedtofilm 05:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Where's the "blatant" assumption of bad faith? It's not a personal attack, as I'm talking about his reasoning. Alpharigel says himself that he's judging by the amount of interest "alone" shown in the afd i.e. the amount of text the afd takes up on the afd page. Since he would have come to a discussion where everyone except one (who seems to have personal or professional links with the article subject) has made delete arguments, I'm questioning his logic. I say nothing about whether his logic is good faith or bad faith. I'm calling him on his strange reasoning. Possibly he may be talking about the NYT/IMDB/AMG references but that still sugggests he hasn't read the discussion, but merely scanned it. Bwithh 15:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You or I don't know how this editor came to their conclusion (nor if the editor is a he or she). "All this interest alone" in no way demonstrates they simply measured the amount of text on an afd screen to reach a conclusion. In your last response you brought up a second option on the comments by speculating that the they were referring to the article references which indicates that you yourself aren't even sure how they reached their opinion. Just by your own response showed your first comment was in bad faith. --Marriedtofilm 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. You're entitled to your own opinions. People arguing keep based on the amount of discussion in an afd crop up more often than you might think. I thought of the second option only after I wrote that comment. If you insisting on twisting my statements to paint me as a little tyrant, go ahead. There doesn't seem to be any reasoning with you. Frankly, you could do with taking your own advice. Bwithh 16:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I also suggest you take a look at what ad hominem actually means. Bwithh 16:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem doesn't apply here as neither of us know how the editor arrived at their conclusion and I'm not suggesting their conclusion is correct (haven't even voted and still up in the air on this). It's just that mean spirited comment - "do you just judge visually by the amount of text you see on screen" - was out of line. --Marriedtofilm 19:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The length of this AfD page is the only thing anywhere on Wikipedia that could indicate a lot of interest in this subject. Bwithh's assumption was reasonable and in no way a personal attack. Also, to Alpharigel: if you were serious, first of all note that almost all the discussion on this page has come from the article's creator and been more about Wikipedia policy in general than about Ms. Divine, and also that "interest" on Wikipedia itself is by no means one our notability critera. -Elmer Clark 21:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Elmer Clark, I appreciate your comment and wish you were the 1st responder to Alpharigel's comment. I think the 1st responder was mocking in tone, but that is my opinion. Your own response to the editor shows you gave benefit of the doubt, assumed good faith, didn't mock while explaning notability critera and seemed to value adhering to WP:BITE. --Marriedtofilm 23:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Bwithh and Alpharigel. ~ trialsanderrors 06:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia is that is defines many various and sundry subjects, people, ideas etc. Having been a longtime viewer of Ms. Divine's creative efforts - weekly TV shows, movies etc. I support her fully and wonder why you would delete her from your website?

Any thinking human being should be able to look on this website, get a description of who/what is Ms. Divine or any other entity listed, access the original information referred to, and make up their own mind as to the value of the information thereby derived.

Please do not delete Ms. Divine from this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peejhayward (talk • contribs) — Peejhayward (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete all per Bwithh. There seems to be a walled garden growing around the subject both inside wiki and outside. If only the achievements were anything as impressive as the (filibustering) by socks taking plpace here! Not only does this appear not to pass WP:BIO, this is NPOV also violates WP:SPAM. Arguing for a "keep" based on the length of discussion is a sure way of improving the lengths of AfD pages with dubious consequences for quality of discussion and of articles. Ohconfucius 06:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Nobody is arguing for a "keep" based on length. That is an assumption that lacks logic. Users that vote "keep", have a right to. It is unnecessary to take a harsh tone with ones that do..

If you are referring to my response with regard to notability as "spamming". That is an incorrect assumption to judge the length of my response as spamming. In order to debate, I need words, and in this case, I have used words to express my reasons for keeping this article. Yet, this is another case of some administrators that live in a "closed box", and are quick to be sarcastic.

Not to mention the fact that I have contributed to other articles on this site, but yet some administrator has tagged my user name to say that I have not contributed articles. Once again a lack of professional journalism is displayed. PeterWeller 00:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)PeterWeller ---

• Delete as I have found out, Wikipedia is more about "notability" than comprehensiveness. I concur, philosophically, with the guy who wrote "Wikipedia is deluded" in that I think Wikipedia should consider being more comprehensive in the realm of things in the public sphere (television, radio, newsprint, etc). But, at this moment they are not and as such this article is not notable under the Wikipedia guidelines and practices right now. Consistency in policy application would be best.--Tony 17:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Questioning this Forgive me: I am not an expert on the criteria for the deletion of articles on Wikipedia.

I noticed that the initial removal was a “speedy deletion”? After reviewing the criteria for this type of removal I did not see how the deletion met the guidelines: patent nonsense or pure vandalism?

I also noticed that regarding notability, verification was an issue. I did a search on Wikipedia for Public Access, found an article on this sight for that subject, scrolled down and saw a link for Queens Public Access, clicked on that site, then their programming schedule and found a listing for the artist’s show, as referenced in her article.

Thanx—Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWeller (talk • contribs)

The speedy deletion criteria applied was probably A7, lack of claim of notability. However, there was evidently some disagreement over that, hence its having been brought here. And I don't think verifiability is the main problem here, notability is. -Elmer Clark 08:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete References given don't support notability claims.Glendoremus 02:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete Too much heat, not enough light. - Richfife 04:02, 24 October 2006 (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.