Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Simonetti


 * 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 keep, particularly from the late discussion after changes were made. IronGargoyle 18:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Simonetti

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Though a short article may be appropriate, all the tiny bits of information eagerly and meticulously collected by some very focussed fellow wikipedians do not meet the relevant content criteria and in parts violate the subject's privacy, so a discussion regarding fairness of tone or npov is not even requirred – it would strongly be, though, if this article wasn't deleted. -- NyxNyx ⌘ 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT There clearly should be a Wikipedia article for Ellen Simonetti - her experience has highlighted important issues regarding blogging and employment. The article as it stands now (3/7/07) is just fairly pathetic, however - some seem to have launched a hatchet job on Ms. Simonetti. I suggest distilling the article down to the basic facts and then perhaps write protecting the article for a time until things settle down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.41.39.124 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)


 * Comment there is a vast amount of material on here by a new-ish User:chulcoop which makes the debate very hard to follow. Can any more-skilled Wikipedian find a way to put his/her additional comments onto another page so that they are available without making it so hard to follow? NBeale 09:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT The childlike threats posted below remind us that there are those within the Wikipedia community who have an agenda beyond that of the community. This article should be locked down after an objective edit. The poorly composed rants about pornography should be deleted, as they have no bearing on the subject matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.176.54 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

It appears that the subject's problem with the article (which she submitted herself, originally), is that it does not continue to be employed as personal puff piece and mechanism for conducting online sales of the subject's books and other ebay sales. The current form of the article (5 Mar 07, 17:41 GMT) is both factual and relevant. -Not Dilbert


 * Delete One newspaper story and a lot of blogging don't add up to the level of notability that should be the requirement for a WP article. Steve Dufour 06:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Note from user chulcoop - soory dont konw how to do this any other way to add to the debate.
 * Comment User:QueenofSky is likely the subject of this article. She started the article and states in a recent blog entry that she started it. Personally I suspect the subject is notable enough to have an article, I haven't read it through in a current state so I'm not going to add a vote one way or the other. -- Hawaiian717 23:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep:

Nearly all references are to comments made on Ellen Simonetti (aka) Queen of Sky's OWN BLOG.

As she herself put them there then "privacy" issues do not apply

Ellen is an internationally famous fired flight attendedant, her story was shown worldwide.

The first reference was to a BBC News story on her suspension and then her firing.

The first Entry for this item was by the woman Queen Of Sky herself.

On the Shilpa Shetty entry it talks about mafia links, extortion and other things. If there are specific sources you dont agree with then make that argument.

Is th BBC not a good source, Her own web journal?

Indeed on the BBC site it links to her journal.

I feel this is censorship by fans of hers and it must be stopped.

Keep the page. Check out the references. Read her Blog.

Also if you check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3974081.stm

then on this bbc website it links to her blog (Queen of The Sky but she calls it queen of sky) mentions her name Ellen Simoetti

There is a BBC source what more do you want? Additional by ch: also if you do a google search http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-48,GGLG:en&q=ellen+simonetti

then you will find lots of news articles about her case.

She has also appeared on Elder,Montel and Talkradio and given lots of TV appearances. Some of these, including Montel and Talkradio can be found on her blog at http://queenofsky.net (also the same as http://queenofsky.journalspace.com) On her blog she has even set up an email address she has asked the media to write to if they want to "book" her.

As stated if you scrap this entry for puttin unwanted truths in you must also scrap the shilpa shetty article for stories about racism, shilpa poppadom, shilpa fuckawala [sic], an apparent indecency complaint and other things.

If you dont you are a hypocrite. I have provided sources for all things stated.

The SWDYM site i have also linked to the Terms and Conditions on their website.

What more do you want?

QofS has gone out of her way to promote herself in the media,in fact she wants as much media work as she can get.

So why should you censor a Public Figure?

Also she has written a hardback novel which is on amazon about her firing http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Ellen%20Simonetti&page=1

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8) (reformatted by Hawaiian717)
 * Comment: Points and accusation listed in the article may well be „true“, but they go far beyond the scope of relevancy. An encyclopaedic lemma should not prepare a law suit but restrain itself to give the more important facts.

Besides, the fact that she started the article in the first place constitutes a case of self-promotion. --  NyxNyx ⌘ 02:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

reply by chulcoop. I am new to wikipedia so hope you will be understanding in this.

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shilpa_Shetty

Please, just do it. If you think the contenet there is relevant then why is mine not? I talks about exact words said during a british TV show and as i said talks about popadoms and someone being called a "cunt". Check out the entry for yourself.

If you dont want to then why not? Why do you only want to police Ellen Simonetti, who is afterall just a fired flight attendant rather than allegations about the former British Miss England, an Indian film actress and a pop singer in the UK?

In the latter, the British Prime Minister was involoved, the Indian Government were involved, the British Chancellor was involved, the Indian Film company was involved, an efigy was burned in India.

Allow the good and the bad. It is a topic ABOUT someone based on articles THE SUBJECT has written.

Why do you care? If it is true what is the problem?

Ellen aka QofS was in worldwide news about 2 to 3 years ago. She did lots of interviews. If you check out her website and look at the "famous fired pics" you may even remember the story.

If anything i did was infactual fine.

But dont allow the Shilpa Shetty entry to remain intact while moaning about this one.

Chulcop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 19:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
 * please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - this article is to be judged on its own merits. As to those merits - this is obviously a notable individual, passing WP:BIO with flying colors (multiple reliable sources, among them, and ).  Even if WP:COI is a problem, this is obviously one of those times that WP:BIO trumps WP:COI with very good sources.  This edit  seems to be the most neutral - I recommend that we go back to that version, tag it with the appropriate cleanup tags, and go from there.  Chulcoop - the subject's own blog is not a reliable source as per WP:SOURCE, regardless of how "factual" you may believe the items to be.  In particular, the bits about the pornographic link and the racial slurs are ad hominem attacks that are completely unsourced, and fail WP:LIVING, so I have removed them.  The section on Ellen's critics may remain, assuming you find reliable sources - two livejournal blogs sniping at each other across cyberspace does not an encyclopedia article make. Keep pending resolution of the edit war, and reversion back to a sane version of the article. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 06:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT

chulcoop's words above reveal his/her true intention: to assault and harras rather than inform. For example, chulcoop purposefully distorts the content found on the referenced advertiser. In truth, the site is an adult matchmaking site that allows adult content to be posted within a user's profile. By claiming it is a hardcore "porn" site chulcoop is distoring reality at the expense of Wikipedia's credibility.

The entry at hand should be rolled back to its most nuetral entry. chulcoop is free to continue seeking his/her agenda elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.176.54 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)


 *  Weak Strong Delete She does seem just about notable, although it is very marginal, but starting your own article is a no-no and if we don't follow this there will be a free-for-all. If someone independent wanted to re-create an article about her, with proper refs (not to her blog or any others) then it might well survive. but not this one. NBeale 23:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC) I am amending my vote to Strong Delete in the light of the excessive amount of comment by Chulcoop which goes well beyond what is reasonable in an AfD debate and risks disrupting the process.  If we allow this sort of thing the whole of WikiPedia will degenerate into farce. And yes no-one can create their own Wikipedia article not even The Queen of England. NBeale 09:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, a public person generally cannot make a page about themselves. If you "broke" the "story" about the website, and you are currently battling with her, then you too are have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the page.  As it is, you are subverting Wikipedia for your own petty squabbles.  If you "broke" the "porn" scoop, then you are aperforming original research which also not allowed. We absolutely positively cannot take your word for any of these statements, and we have no reliable proof that a single thing you have said is true.  As it stands, the only thing we can ascertain at this point is that you are here clearly pushing a very baised agenda.  Please stop, and take your dispute elsewhere. There are plenty of websites that offer free blogs and hosting where you can post any fact or rumor that you dare.  I remain convinced that this is a notable subject, but I'm not going to cry if it gets deleted.  I do recommend that the closing admin consider salting as well, as Chulchoop has already stated that he is willing to re-create the article again with sockpuppets if he has to . - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * STRONG DELETE Unfortunately it is now clear this marginal entry should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a proxy battleground for two blogs, parnote ticularly where one is dedicated to slandering the other. Wikipedia can not allow itself to become a posting ground for every nut-job complaint on every subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.176.54 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

comment by chulcoop

the entry Heather Armstrong

is also just an article about a famous fired blogger.

If her page can exist why not this one?

There must be consistency on Wikipedia and peeps need to know the truth.

COMMENT While each entry must stand on its own merits, the Heather Armstrog entry is distinquishable from the Ellen Simonetti entry as the Armstrong entry is not repleat with harrassing edits from an unethical, self-serviing maniac who has no regard for the Wikipedia rules. Here, the Siminetti entry would be fine if it was limited to a nuetral presentation of relevant facts. Unfortunately, the barely literate chulcoop insists on inserting drivel, minutia and distortions. 68.245.197.0 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

note from chulcoop

OK then. It is all tidied up now I think. Someone can possibly improve on the spelling and Grammar.

Her entry is now similar to that of Heather Armstrong.

Shame you guys dont like having facts when the Shilpa Shetty entry alleges links to the mafia and other stuff.

Can you explain the difference? Why has that entry not marked for deletion? It talks about "cunts" and "fukawalas" and other things.

Please explain the discrepency.

Is it cos one is indian and the other is a yankee?
 * Comment - thank you - the article is much better now. There is still some cleanup to be had, but we can take care of that with tags.  Everybody who !voted delete, please review and reconsider your vote on the cleaned up and netural article with regards to WP:BIO. Chulcoop - please note the extensive list of references at the bottom of the Shilpa Shetty article - most references are to a mainstream news site in India and the UK, and every single one is to a website with some sort of editorial oversight.  This is different then a personal blog where an individual may post anything they wish, true or false, without any sort of editorial control.  Just because something gets posted on a blog, does not mean it is true. This is all detailed very nicely in WP:ATTRIBUTION. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

note from chulcoop

Wik rules state however that a subjects own blog CAN BE USED AS A RELIABLE SOURCE OF THE SUBJECT.

I was trying to point out things that Subject had said on their blog with the source being the Subjects blogs.

Blogs are not generally considered reliable souces but if it is the Subjects Own Blog then this is different.

Somewhere on here of discussion i provided a wik link to prove this.

But ive had enough.

You can read about "Wogs" on a terry wogan entry and as i said on the shilpa entry.

All i was doing was stating fact as sourced on the subjects own blog.

I think you need to understand the difference between general blogs and a subject's official blog.

Wik rules state that subjects own blog should override any other evidence unless the latter is clearly over self promotion.

DOnt blame me thats what wik rules state.

I wanted to try and provide a balanced view esp as i read about fukawalas popadoms and cunts on Shilpa Shetty.

maybe different editors have differing views of what should be on here.

Some are more traditionalist and think this should be like the enc britanica others think more modern and honest sourced comments and minutae for example cunts and shilpa derupa is acceptble.

copy & paste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below).

[edit] Using the subject as a source For more details on this topic, see WP:SELFPUB. In some cases the subject may become involved in editing an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies. It is relevant to the person's notability; It is not contentious; It is not unduly self-serving; There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject. A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source. -

so there u have it.

subesequent changes someone restored some of the more contraversial comments i made. It wasnt me. I have resotred and created the following

(cur) (last) 05:47, 7 March 2007 Chulcoop (Talk | contribs) m (Restored This Definitve Version To Prevent Page Deletion. See page deletion discussion.)

This is my current definitive version. If anyone now changes it nothing to do with me. I did what i could but i cant stop others.

Maybe an agree & tidyup on that version and then a lockdown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 05:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. And that's not a bad version actually.   — Athænara   ✉  10:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

comment from chulcoop

It seems some actually prefer the "contraversial" version so i have done a compromise version at

(cur) (last) 19:06, 7 March 2007 Chulcoop (Talk | contribs) (A compromise definitive factual version. You have to be British to "get" this version. Nothing contentious in this entry at all. All contentiousness on Subjects blog only.)

Which does NOT have any contentiousness on the "contents of blog" section but does link to Ellen's blog, the contents of which are beyond the control of Wikipedia.

Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 11:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)


 * Keep. The USA Today article and BBC article indicate sufficient notability.  Afd is not for content disputes. - Aagtbdfoua 01:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Aagtbdfoua and Athaenara. Let arbitrators deal with Chulcoop's behaviour; it has no bearing on whether this article should be deleted or not. We do not delete articles merely because the subject is controversial (however artificial the controversy may be).--chris.lawson 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up per Chris. Meets WP:N, just needs severe editing. TedFrank 06:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.