Talk:Pamela Hanson

CorenSearchBot Follow Up
I see that the CorenSearchBot flagged this article, so I have gone back and added quotes and citations for Pamela Hanson's personal website, www.pamelahanson.com/biography, as well as introduced that part of the text is from her website. Her website is public domain, so please let me know what else I can do to ensure that this Wikipage is not deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhotoFan76 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It has a copyright notice at the bottom so it is most definitely not public domain. – ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously, Ukexpat is correct about the status of the website. It says, "© 2009 Pamela Hanson Inc. | All Rights Reserved", and even if it didn't would need to have specific language indicating that it wasn't under copyright for us to presume it was public domain (since it clearly isn't PD by age or other common reason, such as authorship by the US government). I have removed a paragraph that presented two quotes from as well as a sequence of text without quotes that included text verbatim. The list of contributors is not the issue. The text introducing them however was a very close paraphrase of the source: "Along with the photographs there are inspiring quotes by some of the writers ...and women ...who know them best." The source says, "Accompanying the photographs are insightful quotes by some of the writers ...and women...who know them best." The beginning of this has minimal changes, but writing material in your own words requires wholly new presentation, not simply switching out some text with synonyms. As for the quotes, their use needs a defensible reason. If you are attributing a point of view, that should be indicated. Otherwise, the quotation is not transformative; it doesn't "add" anything but simply appropriates somebody else's text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Article issues
I am still not convinced that the copyvio issue has been adequately resolved. In addition there are other issues as tagged that all come down to one issue: There are not enough references to reliable sources to demonstrate the subject's notability. References to her own website are not reliable as Wikipedia uses that term and links to her books on a commercial website such as Amazon are not much better. What we need is coverage in reliable sources - reviews of her work and her books etc. – ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

HomeExchange stuff
I took out the section detailing her home exchange as it is completely unencyclopedic. What next, her favourite brand of breakfast cereal? – ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, notability and potential copyright violation issues?
This is one of several dozen articles created by this person’s agent. (It was not necessarily done with their knowledge.) It should be reviewed for notability, conflict of interest and neutral language. Some of the agent’s other articles had copyright issues as well. For more details, see: — A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist (permanent link)