Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria lynn Weston

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 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria lynn Weston

Victoria lynn Weston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

• Delete per nom. JuJube 06:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article represents many of the pitfalls someone can fall into when they ignore the good advice not to write their own autobiography on Wikipedia. janejellyroll 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I think it may well represent all of the pitfalls thereof...Robertissimo 15:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, non-notable spam advertisement. — coelacan talk — 19:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Wtshymanski 23:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:SPAM. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Do Not Delete This article is presently being revised per Wikipedia guidelines. Jujube, you are acting quite unprofessional and your comment is not a valid reason to have this article deleted, hmmm.. "in vain" perhaps? Also, if an article is being considered for deletion, it would be appropriate to include "specific reasons" why it should be deleted and not merely "per nom". As for being labeled "spam and advertising", I can find dozens of other pages written by the author with dozens of self promotion external links. --VWeston 23:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author of the article is also repeatedly reinserting info about her biography into the Victoria Woodhull article. JuJube 23:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Hey JuJube! Yes, as a producer and director of a historical documentary with esteemed reviews from American Journal of History, which also includes indepth interviews from feminist icon Gloria Steinem. You are failing to see that the documentary is about VICTORIA WOODHULL not me. Victoria Woodhull And as other authors have posted their books, it's equally important to include the only documentary which has been broadcast in the US and Canada and currently distributed to universities should be included. This is a significant and well respected documentary about the first female presidential candidate. Vweston 26:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All that "true spirit" nonsense is closer to a personal attack than my joke. In any case, you are obviously offended, so I'm removing it. JuJube 00:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you JuJube! Vweston3554 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Broadcast on television and distributed to universities? The article as it stands does not point this out. Do we have any reference for it that might establish notability? User:Dimadick
• Delete (for now). If information can be included where the documentary was shown on a notable network (and links to notable reviews of it), I wouldn't mind seeing a version of this article (which would be rewritten per wiki-style, perferably not by the subject herself).
  IronDuke 02:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment: IronDuke, that might make the documentary itself notable enough for an article, but that notability would not automatically carry over to the director. — coelacan talk — 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Coelacan, point well-taken. There would probably have to be more to it than that, but it would be a good start, Ithink.

  IronDuke 15:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Comment "Broadcast on television and distributed to universities?" It seems when links and external links have been applied, they have been disputed as self promotion. All postings have been posted within the guidelines of Wikipedia, although VLW page is still under edit phase. Under Victoria Woodhull, required valid reference is clearly posted.User:Vweston3554

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.