Talk:Jenna Fife/Archive 1

Nomination of Jenna Fife for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenna Fife is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Talko
I looked at WP:TALKO but I couldn't find anything about deletion notices with Afd-notice.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I was relying on this statement, which, on balance, doesn't quite extend to your template:




 * So I apologize for removing your template spam. However, I am genuinely curious why you're insisting on it. Did you not read the documentation? Is this a postmodern critique of the deletion process? Afd-notice is for notifying an article's significant contributors on their user talk pages that an AfD is in progress. In addition to being contrary to both convention and intended use, putting it on an article's talk page makes absolutely no sense because the article is already tagged with Article for deletion, which is far more visible to visitors and watchers alike than a notice on the talk page.  Rebb  ing   03:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sorry you want this article to be disappeared from Wikipedia. This website seems much less active these days and more neutrally worded notices to increase community discussion is a good thing. I used the template notice so it would be its word selection, not mine. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss removal of sources
Please discuss removal of sources.

Large swathe of text and sources was removed DIFF.

This is all good info that builds on research by and.

The info is NOT "puff" and should be retained.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * has blatantly ignored this and refused to engage in discussion on the article talk page, instead choosing to communicate by reverting DIFF 1, DIFF 2, DIFF 3. Wholly inappropriate behavior pattern. Not conducive to fostering positive dialog about how to improve the page or gain specific recommendations. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed content that was quite blatant WP:PUFF and I note that you have been reinserting this. I gave quite a clear description of my actions. This material is not reliably sourced and should not be presented as if it is. I note that there is a discussion at AfD. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Which source specifically do you object to? Why? What material do you disagree with? Why do you feel it is "puff" ? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are presenting press release as if they were published by news outlets. I'm following WP:RS. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Which one? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You are claiming that Scottish FA are a news outlet? Or Hibs, who pay her wages? And Pitchero? Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What piece of information that you removed do you doubt is reliable? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edits have relabelled these sources as news sources. You seem unwilling to acknowledge this. I doubt that introducing speculation by her current club manager about her possible future career published on the club website is providing any objective assessment. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I used direct attributed quotations. Do you doubt the factual accuracy of the quotations? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My prime concern is that you are using these sources to promote opinion, rather than to corroborate fact. Again I note that you have not addressed the issue that you were changing the format of press releases so that they appear to be news sources. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Which one did I change? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Within the last few hours you have changed this source: then in the following edits you suggested press releases or blogs were news sources: ,, ,,, , , , . I again note that WP:PUFF refers to exaggerating the notability of article subjects to avoid deletion of the article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. My intent is not "puff". I hate "cite web" and prefer "cite news" for everything. We can simply use Template:Citation instead. I like to fill out as many fields as possible in citations to have as much info as possible for future verification. This includes name of title, work, and publisher. I try to do this for all articles I help take to WP:FA. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Removed all "cite news" and switched to Template:Citation for everything. Hopefully this show of good faith and attempt at compromise is now mutually satisfactory, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Citation
Let's please use Template:Citation for all citations in this article.

This citation has all the necessary parameters.

All the other citations are just daughter citations of this parent one anyway.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Template:Citation helpfully explains: "The Citation template generates a citation for a book, periodical, contribution in a collective work, patent, or a web page. It determines the citation type by examining which parameters are used." &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll assume that might not yet know how Template:Citation is built to allow for many types of parameters. I'll restore this if we don't get a satisfactory explanation from him as to his reasoning. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I had reverted to the non-generic templates. The extended information is useful. My dispute has been that there has been inaccurate information introduced. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you understand how Citation works ? Did you read my quote from Citation ? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read this: "If the correct parameters are used, this template produces output identical to that of the Cite templates, such as Cite book and Cite web". Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)