 | This article was nominated for deletion on 28 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Possible Deletion / References
editOther than my affiliation with this calendar as the photographer, I really don't see an issue with the sources cited for this article. Every bit of television exposure is shown on the calendar's website in the Press section Darker Image Calendar
The Los Angeles Times citation in the References is about as accurate as you can get. Even the Hollywood Reporter citation meets the minimum standard for such a notation. Each of these is independently verifiable, albeit at a cost, through the respective websites of the publishers or through Lexis-Nexis.
I have access to Lexis and have included the LA Times article below, although there is no way this can be verified as accurate obviously.
- Thanks for including those, but I think we have a copyright issue with keeping them here on the talk page. I've verified the LA times one from ProQuest, and don't doubt the Hollywood Reporter. Your references check out, in other words. You can use less well known publications to document the more trivial details, which I've tagged. Check out the way I've reformatted the citations--WP:CITET has a good listing of templates to use for such things. If you need any other help with this artice, don't hesitate to ask here, or hit me up on my talk page. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
B+N quote
editWhy'd it get yanked? I thought it spoke directly to the assertion of notability. Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's back now, but in the second paragraph rather than the first. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I agree with Jclemens that it was relevant quote. PutneySwope1 (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Fact Tagging
editEven if the tags cannot be verified, the appropriate thing to do is either 1) rewrite or trim the statement so that its claims CAN be verified, or 2) leave the fact tag in until it is verified. If you look at other articles, many have such tags, and the worst possible outcome is that if someone comes along and sees the unverified statements and thinks they've been unverified for too long and/or are too controversial to remain uncited (the latter is not likely in either case here), that editor may remove those claims. With that in mind, please see if you can't rephrase the assertions, or put the fact tags back in. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)