Talk:Levi Johnston/Archive 1

CSD
Where is the previous XfD for this page? I think AfD is what you want, not speedy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case. He's notable, over a period long enough to avoid WP:NOT or whatever the inevitable AfD reasoning will be. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)


 * There technically wasn't an afd but there was Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 13 in which there was a consensus that he's not even notable enough for a redirect. This consensus is stronger then a consensus to delete as an article.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Stronger than a delete? Not sure what you mean.  Anyways, his notability has increased quite a bit in the past week. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With a few exceptions, CSD criteria are generally taken to be strict and literal. I think we'd need an AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if someone want to do a procedural nom, I don't mind. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't do that now. I've been WP long enough to know that afd's of people running the Larry King circuit rarely get decided on policy. These afd's usually boil down to wp:ilikeit and wp:idontlikeit's from partisans on both sides and result in a no-consensus. I'll wait a month or two for his second fifteen minutes of fame to expire.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with brewcrewer that the prior discussion resulted in "a consensus that he's not even notable enough for a redirect." There were 10 editors who favored retaining a redirect.  Of those, four  (Mike R, JamesMLane, Robofish, JustGettingItRight) favored redirecting to the article on Sarah Palin's image, two (Amalthea, Grundle2600) favored redirecting to the main Palin bio, and the remaining four (Will Beback, AniMate, Carlossuarez46, ApprenticeFan) didn't specify which redirect target they preferred.  By contrast, only 6 editors (Horologium, Ucanlookitup, Versus22, TerriersFan, Collect, LedRush) favored deleting the redirect.  A position favored by a minority of those responding may be correct but can never be considered a consensus.  In addition, I agree with those who've commented that Johnston's notability has increased since that discussion was closed. JamesMLane t c 17:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment A lot has happened since the last discussion on Johnston. Information on multiple activities, from reliable sources, exist and need to be fleshed out in the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Image
This image may be free, but the site is undergoing maintenence right now so I can't tell if it's a product of the federal government. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a free image per this, so if anyone knows how to upload and crop an image, we can put on in. If I have time, I may do it later myself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Johnston's dialogue with Palin family

 * I am not sure to what extent the dialogue between Johnston and his lawyer, and the Palin family (Sarah Palin's father and her spokesperson) needs to be represented in this article. These exchanges have been reported on for a while now, and by multiple reliable sources. One example can be seen in two articles. CNN's Report: Gov. Palin's father slams teenage dad and the Associated Press'sJohnston lawyer bristles at `deadbeat dad' label. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything about Johnston is kinda controversial. The way I was hoping to build the article was to include as much non-controversial info as possible before adding the controversial stuff, so the article never reads like an attack on Levi or Palin or whoever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds very wise to me. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

New outline

 * Comment I have added a new outline to the article. None of the sections have been expanded on, as this may take time in order to avoid any BLP violations. I would appreciate any comments on the proposed outline. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me. It just needs filling in, with care for BLP issues as mentioned. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Levi and Bristol's debate, through media interviews, on abstinence

 * Comment The public relationship of Levi and Bristol has now reached a point where the two are using media outlets to debate/discuss their individual views on abstinence. As this seems to be an ongoing topic, I think its best to wait a while and see if this recieves continued attention before adding more material related to any "debate" beteen them. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note Some current related articles can be seen in USA Today's Bristol, Levi debate from afar on abstinence, and the Associated Press' Bristol Palin says abstinence best path for teens. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What to put in the lead section
I wrote the following paragraph as the second paragraph of the lead section, to summarize Johnston's post-election notability: "After the birth of their child in December 2008, the couple broke off their engagement. Johnston thereafter said in a nationally televised interview that he was 'pretty sure' Governor Palin had known that he and Bristol were having sex. The Palin family denounced Johnston's statements as 'lies'."

It was moved down to the body of the article by PeregrineFisher. I think it's important that the post-election developments be mentioned in the lead section, both to give the reader a quick overview of the major points of the article and to reinforce Johnston's notability in light of the pending AfD. In previous discussions, some of the editors seeking to deprecate Johnston's notability have acted as if he completely vanished from sight after the Republican National Convention, so we need to highlight the facts that refute that error. I raise the matter here so that others can comment on whether to restore this to the lead section. JamesMLane t c 17:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with it, it's just that per WP:LEAD, more detailed info should go in the body, and a summary in the lead. Basically nothing should be in the lead that doesn't have a more complete version in the body.  So, if I had my way, the current info would stay in body, and a shorter summary of it would go in the lead.  I don't feel strongly about it either way, except I want the article kept, and I don't want to give any WP:COATRACK ammunition to those who want it deleted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Refs all screwed up
Not sure why, but "and.com" is showing up in the URLs, instead of abcnews.com and whatnot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw that the Anchorage Daily News links didn't work, because the domain name was given as "and.com" rather than "adn.com", so I fixed them. Maybe some of those broken abcnews.com links are intended to be to adn.com? JamesMLane t c 06:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's all fixed. Must have been a spell checker or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fact tag
Should we remove the sentences that have "citation needed" after them? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If we can't find a citation for them, of course we should.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

notable
very much a news item and public figure



--Gebl Gebl Gebl (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)]


 * Comment He clearly meets notability for multiple events from multiple reliable sources. Whether one likes him or not, he has already become notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed but some must wonder why an editor (user:Gebl Gebl Gebl) would start an article w/o editing further after his claimed notability and is leaving it to others to either expand or AFD it. I'll give it [the article] a chance and will follow it to see how far it can be "crafted".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * GGG only created it as a redirect. I started it as an actual article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. I should've paid more attention to the edit history before asking a stupid question :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * article is shaping up nicely --Gebl Gebl Gebl (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment He has contributed nothing significant to society. He merely is famous for being the father of an illegitimate child with the daughter of a former VP candidate. This does not make him worthy of a Wikipedia article. He is not even currently in a relationship with said daughter so he is not technically part of the family. While it is true that he has posed as a model for a magazine, like him or not, there are many people who have done so and not yet received Wikipedia articles.

He is not a significant person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.211.79 (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * He's notable because he's been the subject of a ton of news coverage over a sustained period. Propaniac (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow.
I suggested this page to highlight the absurdity of the deletionists' arguments. I'm amazed (but not disappointed) to see it up and running. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Boo. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The part of the article about Levi's myspace information has been deleted
This should be put back in the article:

On September 1, 2008, Sarah Palin announced that her daughter Bristol had gotten knocked up by Johnston, and that the two would be having a shotgun wedding.

However, according to a September 1, 2008 article in the New York Post, Johnston had stated on his myspace page, which has since been taken down, "I don't want kids." The same article also quoted Johnston's myspace page as saying, "I'm a f - - -in' redneck... Ya f - - - with me I'll kick [your] ass."

After Sarah Palin lost the election, the wedding was called off.

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think some immature rambling he left on myspace before he knew he was going to be a public figure should be recorded in this fashion here. There might be an argument for something like "he once described himself as a "redneck" on his myspace page" though i'm not concinved of that yet. The "knocked up" language was thoroughly innapropriate. At any rate, i'm opposed for now. Let's see what others have to say.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "He once described himself as a redneck", that's complete bullshit, what is this 8th grade TAKS? ~ Craig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.233.242 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 12 June 2009


 * There was a MySpace page in his name, but we couldn't even consider referring to it unless we had a reliable source that it was in fact his page. I thought he or someone said that friends of his had put it up as a joke. JamesMLane t c 08:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

His rant has no point of being in the article, no other public figure has back and forth transcripts of disputes. It is unprofessional and petty to include such things on Wikipedia.

title
Whats up with "Impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter"? She has a name, Bristol. Is there any particular reason we aren't using it?

And I think "pregnancy" rather then "impregnation" would be more appropriate. This article is more about the controversy of the actual pregnancy, not the actual conception which the title seems to imply. --Pstanton (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This was just unilaterally moved from "Levi Johnston". I'm trying to figure out how to move back, but may need admin assistance. Bristol Palin is currently a protected redirect, which may change soon, but is currently out of play.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried too but it said that I needed Admin assistance. There was NO reason to move this article, and I hope an admin takes a look at this issue. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 17:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've sought admin assistance here . Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This needs to be moved back. Any rename will require a thorough discussion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In-depth coverage
This (which I reached from HuffPo, which I reached from Wonkette) is coverage so deep (or anyway verbose) that I gave up after three or so screenfuls. But what I bothered to read had a certain bizarre fascination even for me. Someone into slebs would derive a lot from it. -- Hoary (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very funny piece. "Antichrist to some, slab of sweet Arctic man-beef to others" was my favorite line. There might be some useful stuff in there but, like you, i didn't read to the end.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The GQ piece was written by noted author John Jeremiah Sullivan.  At 17 pages, there is most certain items of use in there, particularly about Johnston's family. --Oakshade (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky Hollywood Redirect?
I'm thinking that we should create a redirect for "Ricky Hollywood" here since his new manager has suggested that Levi is going to adopt Ricky Hollywood as his stage name in his future career in the Entertainment Industry. But since I have never created a redirect before could someone else take care of it? The Fading Light (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)