Talk:Shirley Rosario

Fair use rationale for Image:ShirleyRosario.jpg
Image:ShirleyRosario.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

External links section
I don't think the link to http://www.poker-babes.com/ is controversial at all for this article. See the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Badger#External_links_section. Same logic applies. Rray (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly a link to a site with dozens of articles by the subject of the article is a valuable external link, as are an interview or two. 2005 (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The external link to the articles I don't have a problem with - however 'an interview or two' I do. See project poker for why random interviews should not be used as external links and should be used as references instead. On all poker articles, not just this one. DegenFarang (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Content removed
I don't understand the reasoning behind the removal of this content:


 * "Born in San Pedro, California, she grew up in Torrance, California and currently resides in Downey. "

Why would any of this need to be deleted? Rray (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe when it was first removed, it was unsourced, so it may have been appropriate per WP:BLP. As the sentence stands in your quote, it is in my opinion neutral and uncontentious, and a primary source for it is sufficient to cover WP:BLP. I see no reason not to add it back, although an independent reliable source would be better. Other opinions? Amalthea  16:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See project poker. I think a clear meat puppet should not be allowed to make these arguments for 2005 to give the impression another editor agrees with him. DegenFarang (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what the objection is to this specific bit of content though? Wouldn't a discussion of why this sentence should be deleted from the article be more productive than making accusations about editors? Rray (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the removal of the content seems to lack reasoning. It is not controversial and has been referenced by a source that the subject wrote herself. TheTakeover (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that previously banned sock puppet. Now we just need user2005, guyzero and Paige to weigh in and we'll have the full Team 20005 in here trying to create the appearance of consensus when there isn't one. DegenFarang (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in this response regarding the actual content that's being discussed either. Is your only objection to this content that a specific user or set of users thinks it should be included? Or do you have an actual content related reason for removing this content? Rray (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2005, I made many edits to this article beyond the line about where Rosario is from and where she lives now. You (and sock/meat puppets) kept rolling them all back in one click. I don't have a particular problem with this one change being undone - I do have a problem with all of them being undone. DegenFarang (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I re-added the content, since no one seems to have any problems with it. Rray (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2005, I apologize, after reviewing your edit I realize now why I removed it. Because the source is dubious and I think poker-babes should not be used as a reference anywhere on Wikipedia. It is a self published blog but moreso as punishment for the fact that it was spammed more than 200 times across Wikipedia and has cost me and many others a great deal of time to remove. DegenFarang (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the first half of your argument above (a primary source for this kind of fact is OK), the second half is a non-starter -- we don't punish sources, we use what's best in the article. Amalthea  09:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Content removed 2
I don't understand the reasoning behind removing this content, which was deleted from the 2nd paragraph of the article:


 * which featured ring game poker games broadcast live over the Internet. The show later aired on The Poker Channel in the UK under the name The L.A. Poker Scene. Rosario spent 2006 recovering from cancer surgery. She is currently cancer free. 

Why would any of this be deleted? Is it controversial or contentious somehow? Rray (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2005, That belongs in an article on The Bicycle or Live at the Bike, not this article. The poker-babes link was removed because that is a spammy source that should be removed from Wikipedia in each instance, and without the source that information should not be in a BLP. DegenFarang (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per above, using primary sources for this kind of fact is not a WP:BLP violation. "Spammy source" is not useful. I can agree that poker-babes.com is not reliable since it has no editorial oversight (no opinion on pokernews.com). But it can serve as a (primary sources). We use official websites throughout Wikipedia to source uncontentious facts. Official websites are by default indented for advertising, but that is not in itself a reason against them. Regarding the information being misplaced in this article, no opinion on that. Generally a brief summary of related subjects can be useful as long as it's not given WP:UNDUE weight. I note that not all information that was here is now available at Bicycle Casino. Amalthea  09:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Degen, I'm sure that some of the information might be appropriate at an article about The Bicycle, but that isn't a reason for not including it here in order to provide context for the reader. And I don't understand why the information about Shirley's cancer would belong in an article about the Bicycle at all? Rray (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)