Talk:Luisa Zissman

Contested deletion

This page should be speedily deleted because ( Not relevant person , no use to society , not important ) This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --193.60.79.168 (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:CSD#A7. This article does assert why the subject is notable; if you still think that it should be deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is where is should be taken to. I should note, however, that "not relevant person" and "no use to society" are subjective; if we deleted articles because of how some people reject the subjects' real-life use(s) or simply dislike the subject(s), we'd be deleting most of Wikipedia. Acalamari 17:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Rebuild

Over the next few days, I will be stubbing down the article by removing all material that is not biographical and directly relevant to the subject. After that, I will try to find sources with which to construct from the ground up, something that is at least "sober" enough if not "respecable". Any assistance will be appreciated. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

LGBT content

i think this edit went too far, and part of Zissman's personhood is tied to her sexuality at least, and any good biography would include such basic content. Perhaps that could be woven back into the article? Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by "personhood". This article shouldn't exist at all, much less attempt to include details of her self-confessed lifestyle. Her notability was established due to multiple TV appearances. Her sexuality was published as a consequence, not as part of, her appearances. Even if she was happy to flaunt it on Big Brother, it is not intrinsically why she is notable. The sources are not entirely acceptable either, especially the Daily Mail which is now widely deprecated as a WP:RS in biographical matters. The removed content mentioned other people, we need to be careful per WP:NPF. Leaky Caldron 14:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Being bisexual is not a lifestyle, that's really offensive. If you look at the source [1] it is also reported as part of her notability on the Big Brother show. So there really is no excuse to omit this information, even if it should be phrased differently. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What I find offensive is those who promote the inclusion of non-encyclopaedic, badly sourced material (Daily Mail and a Blog) for the sake of covering every aspect of someone's non-notable biography. Leaky Caldron 15:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The only reason a blog is considered an unreliable source is because it is self-published; as the Metro newspaper has been willing to put their name on it, it isn't self-published any more. The papers may not themselves be reliable but the show is. I am quite tempted to reinstate the data sourcing the show.--Launchballer 17:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And I've removed it. You'll be at WP:RSN, WP:BLPN or WP:ANI if you continue to ignore the need for consensus. Leaky Caldron 17:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite the fact that what I added was reliably sourced - i.e. sourced to the show?--Launchballer 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. If you had read the discussion, this is not just about what is sourced. What's the big deal because she is bi and states that she enjoys sex? Is it what she is notable for? We are not required to list everything in someone's life. Leaky Caldron 17:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Point taken.--Launchballer 18:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Before I run Reflinks on it, would you consider the Express reliable? It is certainly better than the Daily Mail.--Launchballer 18:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just explain, per policy, why this content is required in this biography. Provide links to relevant guidance so that we can share your insight into the relevance of this fancruft. Leaky Caldron 18:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fancruft my foot. When I write an article, I think to myself 'what do our customers, the viewers, want to know?'. And I go about sourcing it as reliably as possible. Okay, so the Express information may err on the edge of fancruft - hence why I'm asking your advice on whether or not it should be included - but the Independent data I consider to be part of a summary of Zissman. (That Wikipedia:Article scope doesn't exist and is confined to a small section here is shocking, really. We really could do with a more definite 'dos and don'ts' policy regarding articles.) Zissman is known for The Apprentice, Celebrity Big Brother and to a lesser extent her business, therefore we need to cover her business.--Launchballer 18:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What does her business dealings have to do with her sex life, which is what this section is about? There are plenty of policy guidelines to follow. Try WP:DUE, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:FANCRUFT for starters. BTW, I'm not entirely sure about your 'what do our customers, the viewers, want to know?' idea for articles and content. There is much more to prudent content creation as you should have learned from your abortive attempt to create Jasmine Waltz which was not appreciated by the community at large. Leaky Caldron 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Waltz was only notable for one event whereas Zissman was not. I've fixed the sectioning.--Launchballer 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The Express is a reliable source. Although tabloid in size, it is not a red-top like The Sun, Mirror or Star. Jim Michael (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Launchballer, reliable sources, and several editors dispute the disinclusion of this material. It is not only helpful in imparting knowledge about the subject but it was freely shared by her in relation to the subject for which there is agreement of her notability. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal life

This has been removed. It is normal to include personal life info on bios. Whilst in CBB, she talked at length about her sex life, bisexuality and daughter. There is justification for not including the name and date of birth of her daughter, but the rest, including her marriage and separation, is relevant biographical info. Even her maiden name is missing from the article.

Most notable people's personal lives are not notable and notability typically comes from a person's career. Like it or not, Zissman is a public figure, and she had passed our notability requirements. She is notable as a television personality rather than as a businesswoman, but she is not unique in that regard. Jim Michael (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Year of marriage

Her birthday is 1987 and it says she married in 2001. Did she get married when she was 14 years old? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.251.223.9 (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Her Jewish Husband

I removed the word Jewish that had been used to describe her husband as a "Jewish entrepreneur." The description that follows regarding his company makes no mention of religion so there is no reason to bring up his religion in this way. It seems wholly unnecessary to unilaterally mention his religion when there is no policy to mention the religion or lack there of of everyone else mentioned in an article - he's not even the subject of this article. Point of fact, Luisa's religion (or, again, lack thereof) isn't mentioned even mentioned in the article. 24.212.138.36 (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luisa Zissman. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jewishnews.co.uk/boardroom-broigeses-lord-alan-sugar-returns-in-the-apprentice/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)