| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Untitled
editThis section is an archive of the discussion surrounding a page which was kept following no consensus on VfD
I have had it with this in-DUH-vidual. These TV and movie sub-stubs which are devoid of content come in on a daily basis but from different IPs, maybe from a library. All have the same attributes, namely the article's title being repeated in the edit summary, verb tense conflicts and no more information other than a brief cast list or credits. I've tried to contact this person...no response. I've voted speedy delete...and have been asked to bring the debate here. I've listed these on the RC Patrol page as well. I'm not all bad as I've tried to edit a few. So have other users, to their infinite credit. Still, I feel that ALL of these should be speedy deleted on the same grounds as the Guelph botany department article. - Lucky 6.9 00:39, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Acegikmo1 02:37, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I'd say keep--even these sub-stubs are better than no article at all. Agreed, however, that the person who adds them should include more info and format it correctly. Meelar 04:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Better than nothing. Everyking 04:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Subtrivial, complete waste of time & resources. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete if not expanded to a decent stub. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I would not mind if these were deleted on sight. If this contributer wants it included then he should at least write a proper stub. Thue 09:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - Current stub looks good. Since the current entry shows lengthy filmography I don't see a reason to delete just because the initial user did a poor job. - Tεxτurε 15:36, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I've made a good faith effort to expand the stub a bit myself. Looks good in its current form. - Lucky 6.9 16:05, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree that the substubs are annoying, but instead of listing them here, list them on Cleanup. RickK 19:43, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
- "Cleanup" it shall be. Two more of these came in, namely Rob Roy (movie) and Fluke (movie), but I fixed them myself. If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? - Lucky 6.9 20:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. If legit, a decent filmography. Maybe she has a literate fan or two who'd flesh out a stub.Denni 02:34, 2004 Jun 9 (UTC)
Shayna from Canada?
editAm not aware of anything to back this up. Source? - knoodelhed 04:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Original Research?
editI added a picture and started a biography: I figured, as long as I have a friend on Wikipedia, I should expand her article. But does entering information I know about her from knowing her count as Original Research? Would it help if i put it first on my own website, and then sited that as a reference? That sounds a little silly though.--Yak314 20:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)