Talk:Jennifer Nicole Lee

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Nicole Lee

Looks like this may qualify as CSD G4, recreation of deleted material. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Because of the paid-editing bit and the pointers from the promo website

I suggest a firm with-RS-only stance on the article.- Sinneed 19:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I have all the promo out, and the sources kindly provided by user:Frank in.- Sinneed 22:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Awards

Jennifer Nicole Lee was crowned Miss Bikini America World Champion in Las Vegas in 2004. She was also crowned WBFF Miss Bikini Diva for both 2008 and 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaj1969 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If I am missing some value please tell me

I have been killing the copies of the junk from the promo website under wp:COPYVIO, even though some of it wasn't entirely a copy, I argue changing a few words won't save us. It is also, of course, uniformly unsourced and way out of wp:NPOV. If anyone at all objects or even is concerned, please share. As this is an exception to wp:3RR it is subject to abuse. That isn't my intention, but the-road-to-hell-is-paved-with.- Sinneed 14:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I have considered protecting this article, but so far I have declined to do so. I'm not decreeing that it cannot be protected; if someone else decides to, that's fine, but my reasoning is thus: the level of effort is manageable, and if we semi-protect it, we'll just have a few days off and then when the accounts are auto-confirmed, we'll have to pick it all up again. In that case, we'd have to start blocking accounts and it might be more trouble than just reverting a few edits here and there. I think that once folks see that standards will be upheld, this will die down pretty quick.  Frank  |  talk  19:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree. Don't know who was working the RPP page that day, but my request was declined, I didn't check back. I withdrew the request at the ANI mention, as I agreed then (and do now) that it is more annoyance than serious problem. Truthfully, I expected more spam initially. Maybe they retracted the silly inducement, I haven't gone back to check.- Sinneed 19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

Just placing the external link soliciting editors to spam the article for future reference, since AN/I thread will disappear: http://www.aweber.com/b/1wNO-  Frank  |  talk  00:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

List of published works chopped. Fact flag.

I dropped the fact flag and will restore the works. Chopping the source for the works seems needless... if the objection is to teh link, drop the link... easily done.

On the ebooks, they can be sourced easily, but the sources are the sales sites, tehy are ebooks. They are not, in themselves, notable, and wp:SELFPUB would apply... they *are* part of the websites... websites are able to say that they exist.- Sinneed 03:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please say as to why is is necessary to mention all the entire titles of her series in this encyclopaedia. Anyone can go to her site if it is necessary. It makes things unencyclopaedic.Kerr avon (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"It makes things unencyclopaedic." - In no way whatsoever. She is an author and an actress... listing her roles and her authored items is quite appropriate. How would it NOT be appropriate?- Sinneed 03:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Then one can create a seperate section titled "released works" or whatever and add the titles. That would be less unencyclopaedic. Someone who is reading her biography is not interested in reading a list of her works in the body.Kerr avon (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For example see Anthony_Robbins#Publications for a example —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerr avon (talk • contribs)

WP doesn't generally see it that way. Separate lists are for when prose won't get the job done. This is just 6 videos, all in one series... they easily fit in a short para. The eBooks are all of a type and again, all fit in a short paragraph.- Sinneed 04:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If they are in one series, then why clutter things up by listing them seperately> Just the series name would suffice.Kerr avon (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I may actually wind up doing that at Roman Polanski, as the incredible amount of wp:OR about his works is... large. But here? 2 short paras? I don't think you will find support for chopping. (I don't expect to get away with it there, but... the BLOAT... and no one has objected so far) But as I say, there should be eyes on the page and article, plenty of chance to gather support.- Sinneed 04:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly an argument to be made, but I don't think you will find wide support for the pro-list view of WP. The article is under discussion for deletion and there are a few of us fighting off the paid editors, so you should have plenty of opportunity to gather support here for your view.- Sinneed 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ELs

Do we need the ELs? I confess I won't be going to view them so I am not really entitled to an opinion, just asking.- Sinneed 04:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

They should be removed. If a external link is permmited it could be to her official website if deemed necessary.Kerr avon (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I cut them as a formality, asking for an edit summary of value or a note here.- Sinneed 19:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Aparent "parent" of the Reuters article

here is a "Hollywood Reporter" trade rag article which seems to be the parent of the Reuters article. Since mere mortals can't see this one, and I don't see a need to duplicate the source, and I don't want it to be lost, I am placing this link here. Thank you Hoary for finding the source.- Sinneed 22:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

COI article flag

I would like to understand the reasoning, there. The paid-edit-people have been pretty unsuccessful in adding spam to the article. It is a stubby stub but well-sourced and seems neutrally worded, and I know I have no COI... no reason to expect any of the other "major contributors" do. Propose to remove in the next few days if no need explained.- Sinneed 14:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

COI flag was removed.- Sinneed 16:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

Seems to be material being added by new SPA accounts frequently, and then removed by other editors. Is this article a good candidate for semi-protection?--Milowent (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't been necessary so far; the methods being used are crude and easily identifiable. Today's example was egregious enough to earn a block. Alas, that is sometimes necessary.  Frank  |  talk  19:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides the wp:five pillars argument,(a pretty strong one) the argument I find compelling was the one above... if they are serious, they'll just wait 4 days or whatever, be autoconfirmed, then edit, and we would just "prolong the agony" by semiprotection. And it has died down...- Sinneed 19:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, makes sense to me.--Milowent (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jennifer Nicole Lee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090512192045/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0801/is_2_67/ai_n16029919/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0801/is_2_67/ai_n16029919/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)