Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carla Howe


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, the consensus is that notability has not been demonstrated in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Carla Howe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to fail WP:BIO. I see lots of Google hits (given that this is The Internet and her affiliation with Playboy, unsurprising), but not significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Statistics

Thank you, so much for providing the opportunity to look at this with algorithms that are more appropriate. As you have written you did look at Google for verified sources. A main factor that Google has not been able to address is articles behind newspaper paywalls. That is where many articles of high caliber, caliber so high that people are willing to pay for the service. are located. Throughout much of the UK, the premium news reporting agencies such as The Sun are a perfect example... However, in reading your profile I noticed that it appears you are a man of statistics and quantative research. According to Carla Howe's Klout Score she is rated at a 70 (see Carla Howe at klout.cm. This is pretty substancial. Considering she didn't even correctly link her instagram. As for your above comment about recent interest. A simple look behind the Paywall of one of the leading newspapers in the UK shows otherwise. (See Sun article)

I will be more then happy to go further into Google analytics of how the primary sourcing is creating the secondary sourcing if that needs be. Please state your pleasure. I fully intend in good faith to stand by decision. The fact is that this individual has throughout the last couple of years spiked on Google Analytics to the point in my opinion that this person just like Ashley Alexandra Dupré or Rick Solomon or the scores of other examples of the same equal potential validity have been granted pages...If their is any other quantative research then please feel free to ask for it. Danandrewsreporter (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * the relevant notability guideline is linked above: WP:BIO and associated subsections. Klout, Google analytics, etc are not used on Wikipedia to determine notability; indeed, raw search results are are explicitly not valid per WP:BIO. If you are aware of sources meeting the requirements linked above, by all means cite them instead of search results. VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Then why did you as an administrator reference GOOGLE STATS in your decision above? You literally wasted two hours of my research because I was countering your GOOGLE discussion. If google is irrelevant, then why make note of it and make it part of your argument? This is literally the now 5th contradiction, I have gotten while trying to make my first page. As an administrator who can clearly see this is my first page for you to COUNTER with a discussion using GOOGLE SEARCH AS A REASON NOT TO VALIDATE AS YOU DID ABOVE...then to say Google can't Validate as you do bellow is just frustrating. In fact, as a reporter that frequently covers the White House... see my credentials at http://about.me/knoxcounty after literally leading me on a wild goose chase I am taking this up with your press relations staff... Danandrewsreporter (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)danandrewsreporter
 * Delete No evidence of notability per GNG and BIO. Sources hugely fail WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs)


 * Normally I wouldn't care - whether or not a Playboy model is notable is of little interest to me. But I find the tone and arguments of Danandrewsreporter highly suspicious. He claims to be a reporter, so is getting this article into Wikipedia his job? As a reporter, he ought to know that the overwhelming majority of UK news sources are NOT behind paywalls, so where are other sources. One of his sources - The Sun, a Murdoch tabloid which is, indeed, now behind a paywall - is rarely regarded as entirely reliable. And it is a newspaper, not a "premium news reporting agency". The WIkipedia article in question lacks independent reliable sources and those that are used are promotional (and not even used correctly: one is dated "1990-05-26", which happens to be Ms Howe's bith date, not the article's date!). On this basis, delete as promtional spam. Emeraude (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * How about we userfy and wait for relevant sources to develop? Also, keep in mind this is Danandrewsreporter's first article, and some of this confusion is my fault.  I mentioned to him that I thought she was notable, just glancing at the name, without bothering to check and see if there were substantial secondary sources covering her.  Upon searching, I'm not finding many reliable sources to support a keep.  Bms4880 (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - Fails BIO. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  16:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and GNG. This model got one burst of tabloid coverage. I don't see much depth there. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually she got three bursts...Thank you for once again writing false and misleading information...I have already begun to write my article and am sure it will go national after speaking with a number of people in my field. (Please see my media credentials at about. me/Knox county.) As for my preliminary correspondences see bellow... I will be highlighting each of your failures and they are multiple... Including the latest misinformation by Gene93k. When I am done, I will be more than happy to email for quotes... If you believe so strongly in what you're writing. But in conclusion, nonstop contradictions, misinformation, even this late in the game once again exemplifies why Wikipedia is not reliable...thank you. If you feel that I in any way write misinformation about you feel free to contact me at andrewsd knoxfocus.com But to be honest, after seeing user Gene93k latest post...and clearly looking at Google Analytics, it strongly appears that this individual clearly has no deep grasp of Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danandrewsreporter (talk • contribs)

Jay Walsh [redacted email] 2:30 PM (17 hours ago)

to me Dear Dan,

Thanks for your email to the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Foundation does recognize that editing for the first time, specifically navigating processes like creating a new article, can be challenging for new users. Wikipedia is operated by a passionate community of volunteers, and it's really important to understand the policies and procedures that Wikipedians use to determine what knowledge should be shared in the project. Editors are highly focused on the quality of information, and they carefully scrutinize references and citations and the overall notability of subjects to make sure they are appropriate to be shared in Wikipedia. Even when adhering to those policies, a new editor may find a lot of scrutiny or attention on their first contributions. Some Wikipedians try to really focus on helping first-time Wikipedians, but as a volunteer-driven project there aren't always enough experienced Wikipedians around to help new editors out.

Wikipedia is also a free project, which means it is shared under a free license, so no copyrighted material (including images or other text) can be included. Because of that Wikipedians will endeavor to make sure submitted material does not violate copyright. I'm not suggesting you submitted anything that was copyright, but Wikipedians will want to be totally sure that material is safe to use on the project, and if they don't see definite proof they may delete material to keep the project safe from legal threats by copyright holders.

In answer to your primary question, the Foundation does appreciate that the social and technical knowledge necessary to edit Wikipedia makes it pretty challenging for newcomers to get involved. The core of the Foundation's technical and programmatic work right now is focused on making it easier for new and experienced editors to contribute to Wikipedia. The main project under way to help with that is VisualEditor (you can more about it here, including how to enable the beta tool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor). VisualEditor makes it possible to edit Wikipedia without understanding wiki code, which is a major barrier to first time editing. The Foundation is also working on improved tools to help users communicate with each other, and to know when their attention is needed on a discussion or change.

The Foundation's engineers and developers are also carefully studying the new experiences of Wikipedians, including experiences like yours. They are looking at simple on-screen cues, improved documentation and help text, and other small features to help new users understand what's happening when others get involved, and the Foundation is trying to find better ways to thank and appreciate people for their contributions.

As a new editor there is a good chance you may have your first work reverted or deleted, which isn't a positive experience. The Foundation is studying those situations and trying to develop assisstive technology to help you as a new editor and experienced editors who want to work with you to improve the quality of your contribution.

You can read some recent blog posts from that team about their ongoing work: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/12/20/new-draft-feature/ https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/01/wikipedia-next-generation-discussion-system/ https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/25/try-new-login-accountcreation/

Ultimately though its the community of editors who create and develop policies and best practices for the projects, and those are really meant to ensure that the final product - the articles people read - are of the highest quality possible. That means the editorial process takes time, involves a lot of discussion, and may not happen instantaneously. It's a lot like good journalism - editors care very much about the editorial style, writing, use of images etc that collectively make the publication as good as readers expect.

I hope that helps - let me know if you have any other specific questions.

Jay Walsh (for Wikimedia communications)

Forwarded message from Dan Andrews ---

From: Dan Andrews To: press@wikimedia.org Subject: Subject to article currently being written Date: 2014-02-07 03:36:04 End forwarded message ---

Danandrewsreporter (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)danandrewsreporter


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.