Talk:PrankvsPrank/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... PrankvsPrank is a youtube channel with more than 233,951,028 video views, and although im not a good article author, this is an important article.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... they have 1,218,476 subscribers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosscoolguy (talk • contribs) 22:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... I have organized the references and they are fixed. Please reconsider deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosscoolguy (talk • contribs) 01:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ross. I would like to keep this article, but we might need to find additional reliable sources for it. According to Wikipedia:Notability, "Multiple sources are generally expected." Do you know of any other media outlets or other credible sources that have discussed PrankvsPrank? Λυδαcιτγ 07:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm back!

I'm back as a more experienced editor, an my goal is to make this at least a B grade article. The one problem I have encountered is little news coverage, nor any other reliable sources mentioning PVP. If you find third party sources please add them, or if you don't know how, feel free to post the sources on my talk page. Thanks! ―Rosscoolguy 23:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think that this article is B grade by now. I don't want to grade it because of COI, so can someone else? Thanks. ―Rosscoolguy 22:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring

The issue

The issue is whether this article should refer to Wellen's partner as "Jeana Smith" or 'Jennifer "Jeana" Smith'. Almost unilaterally, sources have referred to her as "Jeana Smith", however, some unreliable sources, such as the Saaan-clopedia have claimed her name is in fact Jennifer. As of now, the most compelling evidence provided by the Saaan-clopedia has been this image.

Background

The edit warring began on September 15, with this edit. Since then, many reverts have been made because of this issue.

Pings

user:TheRedPenOfDoom user:Amandalynn212 user:Mark Arsten user:76.24.110.56 user:172.249.38.97

Proposed merge with Jesse Wellens

Withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Few, if any, reliable sources assert Jesse Wellens's notability. Rather they talk about his channel PrankvsPrank. — (っ◔◡◔)っRoss Hill 16:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC) I can't believe I'm reading this. One event may be a consequence of the other, but still, Wellens is notable for two events - being one half of PrankvsPrank and having had a UK #68 hit. That means he passes WP:1EVENT, WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2 and, technically, criterion #6b as well. Oppose!--Launchballer 19:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC) I'm not buying the "one half of PrankvsPrank" argument. See "notability is not inherited". However I do see your point about WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2. For that reason, I'm dropping the merge request. Have a good day — (っ◔◡◔)っRoss Hill 22:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The issue is whether this article should refer to Wellen's partner as "Jeana Smith" or 'Jennifer "Jeana" Smith'. Almost unilaterally, sources have referred to her as "Jeana", however, some unreliable sources, such as the Saaan-clopedia have claimed her name is in fact Jennifer. As of now, the most compelling evidence provided by the Saaan-clopedia has been this image.

Poll

• Please remember, !votes should be grounded in Wikipedia policies. — (っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

We should call Wellens' partner "Jeana"

1. Even if her name is "Jennifer", this is the article about the Website. Everything published about the subject of the article refers to her as "Jeanna". Delving into her personal life / legal birth name is inappropriate and irrelevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Primarily per WP:VER, WP:Verifiability, not truth, WP:OR, & WP:BLPPRIMARY. Secondarily, per WP:COMMONNAME. Until such time as it can be reliably verified her name is Jennifer, we should call her what our sources do. Using images such as the one linked above constitutes original research. — (っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

   Also, users have mentioned that a YouTube video featuring a segment of an interview by RudeTube Television, is a source that proves her name is Jennifer Smith. Firstly, YouTube videos are not usually considered reliable sources because they can be altered. Secondly, even if it was a reliable source, literally every other reliable source about PrankvsPrank has called her Jeana. Calling her Jennifer Smith because of a YouTube video would be giving undue weight. — (っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 23:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

   Also I've discovered that per WP:BLP, if someone has intentionally hidden their name, and their real name is not widely disseminated, we have to keep the real name anonymous. Ross Hill . . (+???) . . 02:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

   At the beginning of WP:BLP it explicitly states that "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". This clearly supports the removal of any content stating her name is Jennifer Smith. Ross Hill (talk) 14:23, 20 Oct 2013 (UTC) 14:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

3. Jeana (no last name) invited by RFCbot. although the name is likely what is claimed, the sources are indeed not reliable. The channel 4 thing could be used as a reliable source, IF YOU CAN GO DIRECTLY TO THE SORUCE - the youtube version is not citable (although i do admit there is no reason to believe the youtube version has been altered) Further, per WP:BLPNAME we should respect the subjects privacy in that regard. Further, her own twitter IS a reliable source for basic information about herself, and on that twitter account she identifies herself as Jeana. https://twitter.com/PhillyChic5. While the inclusion of her more full name is small potatoes in the scheme of thing, there is a very obvious gross misunderstanding of policy, and civility going on here, and if it continues, I would expect the participants to be blocked. In general I am in complete agreement with redpen's various statements above. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
4. I think there is no real doubt about what her birth name is and the wiki-lawyering about sources is fairly bogus. But per WP:BLPNAME we should use Jenna in this context. Hobit (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We should call Wellens' partner 'Jennifer "Jeana" Smith'

1. Though the Saan-clopedia is not the most reliable source, it contains the most reliable evidence in regards to Smith's birth name, which is in fact Jennifer. It has concrete evidence that her birth name is Jennifer, and not her online pseudo name "Jeana." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.38.97 (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

   you will need to do some splaining there. how could a source that is not reliable be more reliable than reliable sources?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

   That's simple. Tumblr the website, is not verifiably published. However, the contents on Jennifer Smith's information page are reliable. To prove this point, I will enclose the link to a YouTube video of the PvP couple being interviewed on a television show titled "Rude Tube". In the TV show, they disclose her name as Jennifer Smith, and not Jeana. Skip to 51 seconds and you can see it clearly says "Jennifer Smith." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7kjnFWEXE8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.38.97 (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

   not going to bother looking at the video, because even if contains what you say it does, the majority of the reliable sources show that the weight of coverage about the subject of the article is on the name "Jeanna". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

   If you're going to be lazy and stubbornly opinionated, then please leave and do not contribute more to this Talk page. You aren't even capable of correctly spelling her pseudo name "Jeana." Shows how much you truly know. Watch the video and look at the concrete evidence. If not, you do not need to further contribute to this talk page because I would like to work with constructive people on this topic. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.38.97 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC) #

   I HAVE looked at the concrete evidence of all of the sources that have been found worthy of contributing content to the article and weighed them against the one source you have provided that is not being used in the article that says something other than what the majority of sources say. Whether or not it is "true", the sources say it has no relevance to this article. (and please learn to WP:SIGN your comments and you should also read and follow WP:NPA if you do not wish to get blocked.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

   You did not weigh them against my source because you just said you're not even going to look over that source. What's the matter? You can't stand to watch something that contradicts your incorrect statements? And please, halt with the threats. 172.249.38.97 (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)172.249.38.97

   For what it's worth, RPoD, your reliable sources simply state her name as Jeana, there's nothing that indicates her last name is Smith. If you want to strictly go by those sources, and not the source I showed you (which you didn't even care to look at) then you could make a case as her name being Jeana and nothing more. Something like "Jesse Wellens and his girlfriend Jeana." But that is only if we're going to go by the sources already noted, and not the reliable source that I showed you that you believed wasn't even worthy of your time. 172.249.38.97 (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)172.249.38.97

   I think that's a very relevant point. I'm going to look over the sources, and if none of them use "smith", that will be a good discussion to have. — (っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 20:49, 1 Oct 2013 (UTC)

   Indeed none of our sources use "Smith". If everyone is okay with it, I'm changing the options to using either 'Jennifer "Jeana" Smith' or simply "Jeana". — (っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 20:56, 1 Oct 2013 (UTC)

   Hi Ross, thanks for chiming in. Above there is a link of a YouTube video, which shows the PrankvsPrank couple being interviewed on a television show named "Rude Tube." In that video, not only do they disclose Jesse Wellens' real name, but they also disclose that of Jennifer Smith at 51 seconds. If you have not already, please take a look at that source. Thanks. 172.249.38.97 (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)172.249.38.97

   Can we have more people contribute to this? I don't think this will go anywhere if it's just my argument versus RPoD's argument. Jawzey (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey

   so "you" is "IP:72.249.38.97"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

   I have requested contributers at WP:VP/P — (っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 22:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

   Why would you do that type of canvassing? That's a ridiculous and inappropriate place to have asked for contributors ES&L 21:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

   "...canvassing—which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate—is considered inappropriate" - WP:CANVASSING. What I did was not canvassing. I used a template that uses neutral language on a community bulletin. Before you accuse someone of something, look over the policy. — (っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 23:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

2. In my opinion at least, it would appear that "Jennifer" is her official name but she prefers to be called "Jeana", which is very understandable given that I was born a Thomas yet I prefer to be addressed as Tom. I support calling Wellens' partner "Jennifer 'Jeana' Smith".--Launchballer 21:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

   I would like the article to disclose her name as Jennifer "Jeana" Smith as well. It seems to me that the majority here are in favor of calling her Jennifer "Jeana" Smith, and the RudeTube television show interview is a reliable source that not only backs this claim up, but also the name of her partner, Jesse Wellens. Those who oppose to this should, at the very least, have a substantial reason other than "RudeTube interview isn't as good of a source as the other sources," as that is not a good enough reason to neglect the RudeTube source. Jawzey (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey

   Hey Jawzey, thanks for contributing . Firstly, YouTube videos are not usually considered reliable sources because they can be altered. Secondly, even if it was a reliable source, literally every other reliable source about PrankvsPrank has called her Jeana. Calling her Jennifer Smith because of a YouTube video would be giving undue weight. – Ross Hill — (っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 23:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

   Jawzey, you already !voted as 172.249.38.97 above. Both personalities dont get counted twice when determining consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

3. Rude Tube is a reliable source and there's no reason to believe that there's some conspiracy to alter the YouTube clip of the show. Holdek (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

   Uhh, no. Particularly for content about a living person we most certainly hold only the verified reliable sources as reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

   Channel Four Television Corporation is a reliable source. Holdek (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

   but the link isnt to Channel Four Television Corporation. It is to a copyright violation post to a video where someone has created a uploaded something based on something filmed on their TV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

4. Ask the person herself how she wants to be addresses. Damotclese (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• In 2011, Jennifer Smith competed in an obstacle race in Pennsylvania. The couple v-logged their experiences during that day, and in this video published by the couple, one can see that Jennifer Smith's identification number for the race is "40136." The results of that obstacle race are published on WarriorDash's official website here. If you search the ID number "40136," which was the number she wore on that video, on the results page you will see the name linked with that ID number is "Jennifer Smith." Now, the results from that race is a reliably published source and the video used to match Jennifer Smith with the ID number on the results page is also a reliably published source, due to it coming from one of the couple's official YouTube accounts.Jawzey (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey

that is not utilizing a reliably published source, that is doing a lot of original investigation and synthesizing of content (which is perfectly fine for you to do to make up your mind,) but not acceptable as article content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A lot of original investigation, or are you simply lazy? That is perfectly acceptable as article content until you give me a legitimate explanation as to why it is not. I expected such a humorous statement from you. -- Jawzey (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey

in Wikipedia terms, it is a lot of original research: comparing content from two different sources (one of them that is not even published) and using that to come up with a conclusion that is not explicitly made by either source -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Unconstructive

Stop with your pathetic attempts at swaying the argument with your wikilawyering. Both of those are published sources. "Not explicitly made by either source?" If you possess the ability to actually read, you'll see that the WarriorDash SOURCE explicitly spells her name out for you. You once again have no idea what you're talking about. GG. -- Jawzey (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey you are not going to get far on editing wikipedia if you consider basic application of the policies "wikilawyering" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Please, I don't need advice from YOU of all people here. From your embarrassing talk page, you are the last person on Wikipedia that I will ever take advice from. You are not using "basic applications of the policies' whatsoever. What you are doing is being dishonest by applying policies that DO NOT APPLY to my argument, in hopes of fooling me. Not allowing it at all, RPoD, you are not going to win this argument through such means. Try again. -- Jawzey (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey Please remain civil. Ross Hill (talk) 18:53, 20 Oct 2013 (UTC) 18:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

General Discussion

I'm creating this section for easier navigation. Any general comments should go here. Ross Hill (talk) 01:26, 16 Oct 2013 (UTC) 01:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.