Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Nolasco

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. Non-notable, possible vanity article. —Doug Bell talk 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Nolasco

Stephanie Nolasco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

non-notable Pigman (talk • contribs) 06:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and WP:BIO SkierRMH,08:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, apparent vanity. dab (𒁳) 10:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, not really notable. James086Talk | Contribs 12:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks more like a vanity page.--XLR8TION 14:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. Bearly541 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete It is far from vanity. It's to inform people of this very talented, up and coming writer, who I am a fan of. I've seen articles much shorter than this with less detail on unknown wrestlers and such, and they do not get deleted. Just because she is "unknown" in your eyes, doesn't mean she's unknown to others. SideShowFreak 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Note - SideShowFreak is the creator of the article, including sections on name of the subject's poodle and how long she's been dating her boyfriend. Just sayin'... --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep What does the fact that the name of this person's poodle and boyfriend are listed, have to do with anything? And I don't see this as advertising. I've seen many articles that contain less information about far less relevant people. This one is certainly not causing any harm 216.49.220.163 16:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

**Note (for Delete Purposes): The unsigned entry only shows another attempt by the subject or someone close the subject to retain the page for advertsing purposes. Who cares if one's dog took a dump and the subject wrote an article on a blog. Anyone can do that on MySpace! It doesn't make them famous. Unlike bloggers such as Ariana Huffington and Perez Hilton this writer is not famous and has not made any contributions to constructive journalism. As a journalism student and one who works with many in New York's publishing industry, I have never heard of this writer. Plagiarists such as Jayson Blair deserve an article on this site, not someone who owns a dog name foofoo or who has to mention her boyfriend (who also is not notable) in order to cover ground in article that is simply a vanity page. Simply there is no argument here -->DELETE.--XLR8TION 18:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

      • One More Additional Note: Sideshowfreak deleted my comments on this page in order to eliminate my POV in reasoning for the deletion of this page. I have reported him/her to the site administrators for vandalism. The deletion occured on December 11, 2006. Please be aware of this. --XLR8TION 02:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Once Again This appears to be a very weak attempt by the subject to retain the page on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should never be used as an advertising forum. If this page is permitted it could provide a loophole for many others to use this valuable resource as advertising space. Doing so might slow down servers as well as take up valuable space on them as well. --XLR8TION 16:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • --Wow, you do not read. Nowhere on there does it mention anything about a blog, or writing in a blog. You brought that in on your own. And I'm sure you're certainly not a notable journalist. Look at the first sentence in your comment, there's an error in sentence structure: "The unsigned entry only shows another attempt by the subject or someone close the subject to retain...". Go reread your own writing before you go out and criticize the writing of others.SideShowFreak 05:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteWow? That's how you start a sentence? Guess that GED has brought you acclaim for your writing skills. Note to others: Sideshowfreak (AKA 216.49.220.163) has deleted my entries because he/she is not in accordance that this page is headed for deletion. Wikipedia should not be utilized as a sandbox. This is a valuable resource. If anyone wants to brag about their dog unfoofoo or talk about the number of deities the worship, then MySpace is the forum one should seek. This should be the end of this conversation. Any further deletions will be considered vandalism and prompt action by authorized administrators will be taken.--XLR8TION 05:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again your comment has errors. It's amusing."talk about the number of deities the worship..." What's funny is that the page doesn't mention anything about how many supposed deities anyone worships. Stop making things up. Some journalist you are; you can't even get your facts straight about what you read.SideShowFreak 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

*Delete: Pagan = worshipper of many gods; polytheistic. Unless one is the subject you should not be upset about this. Again, another attempt to keep a vanity page. If Ms. Nolasco wants to do readings she can do at a chicken beheading ceremony where she can pay homage to Yemaya, however I am sure the subject would agree totally that Wikipedia is not a forum to brag about her dog foofoo-a-loo, her favorite writers, and her boyfriend. Here is a link to [MySpace] that you can forward her. End of conversation. Delete--XLR8TION 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

      • Another deletion by SideShowFreak. This person has been reported already and possibly faces account deletion and/or IP address block. Please do not blank pages or delete POVs. --XLR8TION 22:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: SideShowFreak, please stop vandalizing this page. Blanking the comments of other editors is vandalism. XLR8TION, your recommendation for deletion, and reasons for this, are noted. You don't need to start every comment by re-stating what you've already said :-) Both of you need to calm down and back off. Might I suggest you refrain from further comments unless and until you have something new to add to the discussion. At this point the consensus on the AfD seems clear, and I don't think further re-stating will make any difference. Thanks! --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • note: SideShowFreak has been blocked for vandalism and personal attacks. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:48, 12 December 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.