Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey-Jane


 * 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 Speedy delete- A7. Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Casey-Jane

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not sure how this page works re replies so apologies if I have done this incorrectly. The article is absolutely true & was created with the full knowledge & appproval of the subject. However Casey-Jane has a cyber-stalker adding vicious & offensive untruths & linking her to her online forum life, posing a massive security risk & causing much distress to Casey-Jane & her family. Casey-Jane has been in contact with Wikipedia regarding this issue and plans to take the matter further. I am the author & have been deleting these comments as they have appeared but we would like the article deleted immediately please. Thank you. Jennyacedaras 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Reinstating this afd, last was malformed. This article does not prove its noteworthiness, but I am not sure if it should be speedily deleted. Maybe someone could put some references in to save this article. Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 14:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Reposting as my original comment was removed by Jennyacedaras in her edit of this page. Recommend this article be removed as it sounds like a resume. Author most likely to be person referenced in article. Breach of point 11 - Advertising. FatalError12345 15:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to save this, have been editing to remove self-promoting comments and neutralise statements. Would help if the Original Author wouldn't keep changing it back to the orioginal PR spiel. However, strongly recommend a surname be added as "Casey-jane" could be anybody of a few thousand casey-janes in the world. Also, doing a search on full name (as found in prior edit) brings up nothing in google. Subject of article seems to be unknown and not noteworthy for inclusion as none of the "achievements" are or can be referenced. FatalError12345 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not reverted anything back to the "original PR spiel" - I have corrected a typo & added a lesser version of a comment you said couldn't be referenced. Also added a brand name as your version completely changed the entire point of the paragraph. I am removing the surname, as you can see from my previous entry on this page, there is currently a massive security risk to Casey & her family, which is why I removed it this morning. WOULD HELP IF YOU DID NOT ADD TO THIS. Her surname has never been used professionally so it is of no benefit to the article. Jennyacedaras 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Without the surname, the article is meaningless - who is Casey-Jane? This isn't MySpace. Also, please ad a comment to your corrections - it makes editing much harder if you don't tell us what and why you're editing. Thank you! FatalError12345 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is waiting to be deleted because there is some nutter stalking her. Does it really need constant editting if it is waiting to be deleted??? JUST DELETE IT & STOP ADDING TO THE SECURITY RISK. We would very much like it to become meaningless! Jennyacedaras 16:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am editing it as pointed out by Adam, in order to attempt to reference and save it. Adding yourself to Wikipedia and then failing to accept others can and will be editing your content makes a mockery of the whole thing. FatalError12345 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

NO ONE WANTS IT TO BE SAVED. Not the author, not Casey, not you! If you do not think Casey-Jane is worthy of a precious Wikipedia page, is making a mockery of your little website & that I have written this about myself then why does it bother you so much that it be editted to absolute perfection? If the article is so inaccurate, just a PR stunt or advertising (Why?? Casey is retired now?) then JUST DELETE IT. Jennyacedaras 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you're flying off the handle. I can't delete it. You submitted an article to a social website. Articles are then claimed by the community and continually improved. We both suggested it be deleted, but an Admin has suggested the article be referenced in order to save it. I'm attempting to do so. FatalError12345 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am 'flying off the handle' because this is not just that someone posted a nasty comment, it is that someone is creating a security risk to Casey & her family. We are trying to stop it & you adding surnames is making it worse! You think I wrote it about myself, you think Casey is unknown, so show admin your search engine results, prove she's a nobody & get them to delete it. You obviously doubt the entire thing & if that is enough to have it removed then so be it, that's fine by everyone involved! Jennyacedaras 16:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm attempting to save the entry as suggested by Adam. FatalError12345 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would Adam want to save an entry about an unknown person writing an article about themself as a PR stunt? Obviously Google results are all that signify sucess so Casey is obviously unworthy. Jennyacedaras 16:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ask him, he's the one who suggested it. Have managed to reference last statement so article might be salvageable. FatalError12345 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well isn't that just wonderful... thanks for that, I hope you never have a stalker after you, causing a risk to your children. Jennyacedaras 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, but I don't see the relevence. You added content to Wikipedia in full knowledge that it would not only be public, but fully editable. I'm sorry someone has taken exception that you, but surely the last thing one would do in such a situation would be to publicise yourself on such a large and open platform. I'm just following the site philosophy which is to work with what is provided and make it as detailed and relevant as possible. I suggest you take your ire out on 1. your stalker, 2. an admin (not recommended since it's hardly their fault!) 3. Yourself for creating this situation. FatalError12345 17:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: The article was created BEFORE the stalker came about, otherwise I wouldn't have created the article, obviously. I have never blamed anyone for the situation, you are right in as much as it is the stalkers fault & possibly mine for creating the article (though if other models or TV presenters had someone posting about their personal or forum life it would hardly be the article's authors fault, would it!), but is that a reason to not help, make the whole situation worse & post even more details about Casey?? You started off by saying you recommend it for deletion, then go on to edit it so it can stay! And put in surnames which had been removed, as explained, because of a nasty situation & security risk that had arisen?? Why would anyone with any kind of morals or heart do that??? Jennyacedaras 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Last update for today - have only managed to reference two points in the article. Not sure if this makes it notable enough for inclusion. If it does, still recommend surname is added to title for clarity. I also retract my suggestion for removal, following Original Author's continuous assertions she isn't the subject. It can be found in earlier edits, I won't post it here as I can't deal be bothered to deal with more hysteria. FatalError12345 17:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your constant edits have deleted 2 replies. Now I can't even think what they were because all I can say is how could you? Knowing the situation, how could you do that? Sleep well tonight. I came asking for help & all you have done is give them even more ammo & go one step further - at least they hadn't posted Casey's married surname & husband's name. When have I said I'm NOT Casey? I've said you obviously think I am. Well that breaks the "philosophy" too & the article should still be deleted then, so fine, I'm Casey, I wrote it about myself, now delete it admin. At minimum you could leave it as it is & delete the history for now at least. Jennyacedaras 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to anyone who could care less about this nonsense: Jennyacedaras *is* the titular Casey-Jane, despite her laughably hilarious third-person speech. She wrote an autobiographical Vanity entry about her non-Notable life (seriously, Google her full name and see what you find) and is now whining about it. Which is somewhat ironic given that she, well *wrote her own Wiki entry and is now bothered about the attention it garnered*. Here's an idea, if you don't want people to know stuff about, try *not* writing an article about yourself on a public website.


 * 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.