Talk:Belle Knox: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:00, 6 October 2014 editReaderofthePack (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators91,175 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:00, 6 October 2014 edit undoReaderofthePack (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators91,175 edits →Belle Knox Next edit →
Line 13:		Line 13:
	No discussion on Belle Knox and yet it has been nominated for deletion 2 times by haters?--] (]) 00:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)		No discussion on Belle Knox and yet it has been nominated for deletion 2 times by haters?--] (]) 00:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
	*Please assume good faith! The problem is that first, the article was initially deleted and the talk history from that first version does not show up on the current talk page. You can see it in the talk page history and I'll see if I can get it archived somehow. As far as the nominations go, the first nomination came when the story had just broken and there were concerns that everything fell under ]. In a nutshell, that policy is concerned with the idea that someone might have gained coverage for something that is fleeting and would ultimately be forgotten in a few weeks or so. ] and the ] are excellent examples of things that gained quite a bit of coverage at first but had no lasting notability and did not gain any real further coverage. When the page was re-created a little bit ago, it didn't have that much coverage or content compared to the last version and given the discussion at the last AfD, it's reasonable to be concerned over lasting notability and taking the article back to AfD was the right thing to do in this instance. While Knox's reasons for coverage are contentious for obvious reasons, people nominating her article for deletion does not automatically mean that they are "haters". ]] 04:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)		*Please assume good faith! The problem is that first, the article was initially deleted and the talk history from that first version does not show up on the current talk page. You can see it in the talk page history and I'll see if I can get it archived somehow. As far as the nominations go, the first nomination came when the story had just broken and there were concerns that everything fell under ]. In a nutshell, that policy is concerned with the idea that someone might have gained coverage for something that is fleeting and would ultimately be forgotten in a few weeks or so. ] and the ] are excellent examples of things that gained quite a bit of coverage at first but had no lasting notability and did not gain any real further coverage. When the page was re-created a little bit ago, it didn't have that much coverage or content compared to the last version and given the discussion at the last AfD, it's reasonable to be concerned over lasting notability and taking the article back to AfD was the right thing to do in this instance. While Knox's reasons for coverage are contentious for obvious reasons, people nominating her article for deletion does not automatically mean that they are "haters". ]] 04:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
			:*I've made an archive of the contents and you can view it via the box above. ]] 05:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:00, 6 October 2014

This article was nominated for deletion on March 7 2014. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pornography Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Washington Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Archive 1 (Start - March 19 2014)

Belle Knox

No discussion on Belle Knox and yet it has been nominated for deletion 2 times by haters?--150.216.254.207 (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith! The problem is that first, the article was initially deleted and the talk history from that first version does not show up on the current talk page. You can see it in the talk page history and I'll see if I can get it archived somehow. As far as the nominations go, the first nomination came when the story had just broken and there were concerns that everything fell under WP:BLP1E. In a nutshell, that policy is concerned with the idea that someone might have gained coverage for something that is fleeting and would ultimately be forgotten in a few weeks or so. Daniel Morgan Perry and the Ikea Monkey are excellent examples of things that gained quite a bit of coverage at first but had no lasting notability and did not gain any real further coverage. When the page was re-created a little bit ago, it didn't have that much coverage or content compared to the last version and given the discussion at the last AfD, it's reasonable to be concerned over lasting notability and taking the article back to AfD was the right thing to do in this instance. While Knox's reasons for coverage are contentious for obvious reasons, people nominating her article for deletion does not automatically mean that they are "haters". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made an archive of the contents and you can view it via the box above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories: