Talk:Melody Oliveria/Archive 1

YouTube links
This article is one of [ thousands] on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message on the talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material violating someone's copyright. If you are not sure whether the link on this article should be removed or if you would like to help spread this message, contact us on User talk:J.smith/YouTube Linklist. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 00:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Shameless self promoter
72.57.100.254

In the history of this Wikipedia article, I have been misquoted and someone made some false story up about me being part of the Logitech company. BowieChick

Resources?
"'Breakup', which has reached around 1,139,668 views (July 14, 2006), is said to help with Logitech's sales." Um, okay? How? I could just as easily say that her "Breakup" video is said to help with raising the price of gas. 70.118.95.30

No, it really is said to help with sales. The video showed off the camera effects of a certain webcam, which a lot of people found to be pretty amazing at the time. They then would ask what the camera was. The word spread and Logitech saw a huge jump in their sales.


 * And can you cite where this is stated, e.g. a business report on Logitech, or at least a tech publication? x 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete in the discussion
I restored the discussion parts which had been deleted. Don't delete any discussion things, please. Anyway, about the article itself, it's not even close to neutral. BowieChick writing about how humble she has remained? Come on. Lijnema 12:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

this article needs deleted. i seriously doubt this person is notable enough.

Autobiography
I suggest that any of BowieChick's edits to be removed, as it is a violation of wiki rules. (which says if it is a biographical article, the person who is the same person the article referred to must not be related in editing) But what I'm really think is this article should me removed. She is just a user on YouTube with no international or even nationwide (or even local) recognition. (and with only around 30,000 users watched her, come on!!) Now I have a second thought.. the whole article should be deleted. Kenneth Vergil 20:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete
This article should be wiped. It's a mess, and 1.1 million views is FAR from a reason to include. (By comparison, Joseph Blanchette / LegendaryFrog was deleted even his works were viewed at least 20 million times). Frigo 17:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. This article is crap. I don't even know why it was started. And some people seem to be hurt by the fact that it is here.


 * And some people seem to be hurt by the fact that it is here. Which is irrelavant. Is there a WP policy regarding feelings and article deletion? The whole attack here is unbelievably unobjective. x 20:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

30,000?
Insignificant autobiography. Get rid of it. Skolympus 18:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC

What is with Youtube Articles
I have already managed to get the admins to delete a couple and this one is next on my list. Thank you very much. (Pleasantview 09:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

notability and autobiography and You Tube
Sorry guys but I disagree that this article should be removed. Bowiechick has been noted specifically in articles and TV stories about You Tube, making her at least notable enough to belng in WP. The threshhold ain't that high, and shouldn't be.

Regarding a person editing an article about themselves, I'd like to see the specific WP policy on that. It doesn't make sense, since NPOV and verifiability applies regardless.

But yes, as it stands now, the article sucks. It seems like she's treating WP like MySpace. But why not fix it instead of chucking it?

And regarding You Tube links, if they're just used as illustrative examples, they're fine. Of course they're not useful as sources; and the question of copyright, well, if they're posted by the copyright owner in the first place, what's the issue?

x 20:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)