![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm retaining these comments from the draft article when it was at AfC. It was recreated at AfC to address the alleged promotional nature of previous versions of the article. Despite being rewritten, using multiple in-depth sources over a 15 year period, and a non-aligned review requested, it was reviewed and declined by an admin who had previously speedy deleted a version of the article. In my view as a long standing AfC reviewer Eliasch meets WP:GNG and, if anyone disgrees, let's have a full AfD discussion with an impartial closing admin. Article is no-longer promotional and cites several claims to notability, therefore is no longer a speedy deletion candidate. Sionk ( talk) 16:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I think I will not send the article to afd at the moment, though if anyone else does I am unlikely to !vote to keep it in its present form. it is possible that she is notable for the film and the photography. (I added a brief notice of the photography published in a reliable professional journal on the basis of the worldcat listing for the review--I have not yet actually seen the review, but the title is helpful.) However, based on the sources cited the the article, the sequence given for her book, theatre work, and film is in that order--the film is based on the play which is in turn based on the poetry.
However, the personal information in the article is excessive, and fails our policy NOT TABLOID. It isn't a BLP violation--based on the sources, she is apparently very anxious to publicize this material herself. Besides NOT TABLOID, a good case could be made for removing much of it as self-promotion. Doing so would in my opinion strengthen the article against deletion. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
This article has been supported some of the best editors and only taken down because of the way it was written. The editor registered today again the claim that the page should be deleted. Why is it so under attack? There seems to be no reason. I checked and the page was up for seven years before. Is this vandalism? Perhaps they are anti pretty women who are clever? What do we do to protect the article? Spikequeen ( talk) 17:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)spikequeen Spikequeen ( talk) 17:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a credible artist and writer in the United Kingdom, I think her work should be respected by the users, I think the article is continually subjected to Vandalism. This page is not unambiguously promotional, because she is a credible artist, with notable works and recognition. The article seems to continually subjected to vandalism. The article adheres to the rules of Wikipedia. This time put in jeopardy by no credited editor-- Spikequeen ( talk) 07:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Arthur goes shopping for your advice on this page. Glad you think it is worthy to be on Wikipedia. I will listen to your advice and check the other artists/filmmakers too. If you can help I would be most grateful. Spikequeen ( talk) 09:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd add to the above, I fail to understand why this article is under continual attack. It makes clear claims of notability, therefore is definitely not a speedy deletion candidate. The author that added the speedy seems to have registered today with the sole intention of deleting the article. Past history or personal grudge? Sionk ( talk) 23:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I just wanted to drop a friendly reminder that an AfD is now open. Irregardless of what we might think about its merits or lack thereof, until it is closed that's where all discussion concerning keeping or deleting this article should be occurring in order to avoid any question of possible
canvassing. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
22:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I undid the speedy keep closure for the following reasons:
Let it run for the full time (7 days) and assessed by an administrators so this time it will be permanent. Tutelary ( talk) 00:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
There are few bare urls added as inline citations which is something that is not very desirable because of link rot. I was going to go in an clean them up, but noticed there are two different citation styles being used: two use templates and the most of the rest are written freehand. WP:CITEVAR says that we should defer to the style used by the first significant contributor to the article. In this particular case, that appears to be "freehand" per this edit . Personally, I prefer using templates because I think they are a little easier to manage, but freehand is perfectly acceptable. Regardless of my personal preference, it might be a good idea for the community to reach a consensus as to which citation style is the preferred style for this particular article. Doing so will not only make it easier to go in a clean up any problems with existing citations, but also will serve as a guide for editors adding any new sources. Just a suggestion.
Anyway, for the time being, I have added a {{ cleanup-bare URLs}} since I am not sure which style should be used. Once the preferred style has been clarified, the two bare urls can be cleaned up accordingly and the template removed. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 22:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to use {{ infobox artist}} in this article? The only parameters filled in are "name", "caption", "image" ("image_size") and "birth_place". There are other parameters such as "background", "origin" and "occupation" filled in, but these aren't even part of the template so readers can't see them unless they look at the code. The "caption" and the "name" parameters are the same which is unnecessarily redundant and Eliasch's place of birth is given in the fist sentence of early life. WP:INFOBOXUSE says that "the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article." Like everything else then, it's usage should be judged on whether it actually improves the reader's understanding of the article. In my opinion, the only role this infobox is performing is that of a "picture frame", so removing it will not detract from the reader's understanding in any way. Why not just have a photo with an appropriate caption? - Marchjuly ( talk) 00:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sionk, the black and white photographs are not nude, they are semi clothed. I checked. They are not outrageous. They are like 1930's..photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikequeen ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what to do with this constant barrage of disruptive editing by Aromavic and their rather obvious sock (now blocked). I know that efforts have been made to reason with him/her and warnings have been posted on their talk page, but nothing seems to be getting through. The complete disregard for consensus and editing history are indicative of a SPA with a hardcore vendetta of some kind against the subject of the article. As much as I intensely dislike ANI, I really am getting tired of reverting this endless stream of abusive edits. Any suggestions? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I reworded the section about Eliasch's Brit Week party. Much of the information in the original sentence was not mentioned at at all in either of the cited sources. I tried to save what I could and the wording may not be perfect, but I removed anything not specifically mentioned in the sources per WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:GRAPEVINE. If new sources are found that verify any of the information I removed, then please re-add. Also, re-adding the information and then adding a {{ fact}} or {{ citation needed}} template is not an option because such templates are not supposed to be used on article's about living people per Template:Citation needed#When not to use this template - Marchjuly ( talk) 11:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The article says the Eliasch was born in Beruit, but was raised in England. Would that mean she also has Lebanese nationality? I'm pretty sure that Great Britain is not a nationality, but I'm not sure if she would be considered English, British or both. The title of reference no. 29 begins with "British Artist Amanda Eliasch..." so I have changed her nationality to British. If that's not correct, then please revert or replace. - Marchjuly ( talk) 14:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Also here is the proof she went to ALRA, reputable drama school in UK. http://www.alra.co.uk/images/pdf/alra-article/alra_article-issue-5.pdf Spikequeen ( talk) 15:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear Marchjuly, Eliasch's proof of going to RADA is this and many other editorial pieces so presumably she went http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/much-ado-about-amanda-eliasch-6411222.html. Spikequeen ( talk) 16:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Today I phoned him and Amanda did indeed study at RADA, he did teach Eliasch and she went under the name of Amanda Gilliatabove which makes it seem as if you somehow know him, perhaps personally or professionally. If this is the case, then it's possible that you have a conflict of interest with the subject matter, and other might see this a you trying to push a specific point of view. If you are connected to Watson in some way, then I suggest you read " Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide" just to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia's COI policies are. - Marchjuly ( talk) 22:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
There is an ANI discussion now taking place that may involve this article and one or more editors who have contributed to it. It can be found here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Due to their persistent disruptive editing Aromavic is now subject to a topic ban on Amanda Eliasch. This means s/he is strictly prohibited from making any edits on this subject anywhere on Wikipedia, including this article and its talk page. Hopefully this will bring an end to the incessant attacks on this article. However if s/he should violate the ban, an administrator should be notified or a notice posted on WP:ANI. Also any edits made in violation of the ban should be reverted, no matter how innocuous they may seem. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 06:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm retaining these comments from the draft article when it was at AfC. It was recreated at AfC to address the alleged promotional nature of previous versions of the article. Despite being rewritten, using multiple in-depth sources over a 15 year period, and a non-aligned review requested, it was reviewed and declined by an admin who had previously speedy deleted a version of the article. In my view as a long standing AfC reviewer Eliasch meets WP:GNG and, if anyone disgrees, let's have a full AfD discussion with an impartial closing admin. Article is no-longer promotional and cites several claims to notability, therefore is no longer a speedy deletion candidate. Sionk ( talk) 16:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I think I will not send the article to afd at the moment, though if anyone else does I am unlikely to !vote to keep it in its present form. it is possible that she is notable for the film and the photography. (I added a brief notice of the photography published in a reliable professional journal on the basis of the worldcat listing for the review--I have not yet actually seen the review, but the title is helpful.) However, based on the sources cited the the article, the sequence given for her book, theatre work, and film is in that order--the film is based on the play which is in turn based on the poetry.
However, the personal information in the article is excessive, and fails our policy NOT TABLOID. It isn't a BLP violation--based on the sources, she is apparently very anxious to publicize this material herself. Besides NOT TABLOID, a good case could be made for removing much of it as self-promotion. Doing so would in my opinion strengthen the article against deletion. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
This article has been supported some of the best editors and only taken down because of the way it was written. The editor registered today again the claim that the page should be deleted. Why is it so under attack? There seems to be no reason. I checked and the page was up for seven years before. Is this vandalism? Perhaps they are anti pretty women who are clever? What do we do to protect the article? Spikequeen ( talk) 17:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)spikequeen Spikequeen ( talk) 17:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a credible artist and writer in the United Kingdom, I think her work should be respected by the users, I think the article is continually subjected to Vandalism. This page is not unambiguously promotional, because she is a credible artist, with notable works and recognition. The article seems to continually subjected to vandalism. The article adheres to the rules of Wikipedia. This time put in jeopardy by no credited editor-- Spikequeen ( talk) 07:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Arthur goes shopping for your advice on this page. Glad you think it is worthy to be on Wikipedia. I will listen to your advice and check the other artists/filmmakers too. If you can help I would be most grateful. Spikequeen ( talk) 09:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd add to the above, I fail to understand why this article is under continual attack. It makes clear claims of notability, therefore is definitely not a speedy deletion candidate. The author that added the speedy seems to have registered today with the sole intention of deleting the article. Past history or personal grudge? Sionk ( talk) 23:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I just wanted to drop a friendly reminder that an AfD is now open. Irregardless of what we might think about its merits or lack thereof, until it is closed that's where all discussion concerning keeping or deleting this article should be occurring in order to avoid any question of possible
canvassing. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
22:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I undid the speedy keep closure for the following reasons:
Let it run for the full time (7 days) and assessed by an administrators so this time it will be permanent. Tutelary ( talk) 00:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
There are few bare urls added as inline citations which is something that is not very desirable because of link rot. I was going to go in an clean them up, but noticed there are two different citation styles being used: two use templates and the most of the rest are written freehand. WP:CITEVAR says that we should defer to the style used by the first significant contributor to the article. In this particular case, that appears to be "freehand" per this edit . Personally, I prefer using templates because I think they are a little easier to manage, but freehand is perfectly acceptable. Regardless of my personal preference, it might be a good idea for the community to reach a consensus as to which citation style is the preferred style for this particular article. Doing so will not only make it easier to go in a clean up any problems with existing citations, but also will serve as a guide for editors adding any new sources. Just a suggestion.
Anyway, for the time being, I have added a {{ cleanup-bare URLs}} since I am not sure which style should be used. Once the preferred style has been clarified, the two bare urls can be cleaned up accordingly and the template removed. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 22:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to use {{ infobox artist}} in this article? The only parameters filled in are "name", "caption", "image" ("image_size") and "birth_place". There are other parameters such as "background", "origin" and "occupation" filled in, but these aren't even part of the template so readers can't see them unless they look at the code. The "caption" and the "name" parameters are the same which is unnecessarily redundant and Eliasch's place of birth is given in the fist sentence of early life. WP:INFOBOXUSE says that "the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article." Like everything else then, it's usage should be judged on whether it actually improves the reader's understanding of the article. In my opinion, the only role this infobox is performing is that of a "picture frame", so removing it will not detract from the reader's understanding in any way. Why not just have a photo with an appropriate caption? - Marchjuly ( talk) 00:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sionk, the black and white photographs are not nude, they are semi clothed. I checked. They are not outrageous. They are like 1930's..photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikequeen ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what to do with this constant barrage of disruptive editing by Aromavic and their rather obvious sock (now blocked). I know that efforts have been made to reason with him/her and warnings have been posted on their talk page, but nothing seems to be getting through. The complete disregard for consensus and editing history are indicative of a SPA with a hardcore vendetta of some kind against the subject of the article. As much as I intensely dislike ANI, I really am getting tired of reverting this endless stream of abusive edits. Any suggestions? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I reworded the section about Eliasch's Brit Week party. Much of the information in the original sentence was not mentioned at at all in either of the cited sources. I tried to save what I could and the wording may not be perfect, but I removed anything not specifically mentioned in the sources per WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:GRAPEVINE. If new sources are found that verify any of the information I removed, then please re-add. Also, re-adding the information and then adding a {{ fact}} or {{ citation needed}} template is not an option because such templates are not supposed to be used on article's about living people per Template:Citation needed#When not to use this template - Marchjuly ( talk) 11:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The article says the Eliasch was born in Beruit, but was raised in England. Would that mean she also has Lebanese nationality? I'm pretty sure that Great Britain is not a nationality, but I'm not sure if she would be considered English, British or both. The title of reference no. 29 begins with "British Artist Amanda Eliasch..." so I have changed her nationality to British. If that's not correct, then please revert or replace. - Marchjuly ( talk) 14:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Also here is the proof she went to ALRA, reputable drama school in UK. http://www.alra.co.uk/images/pdf/alra-article/alra_article-issue-5.pdf Spikequeen ( talk) 15:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear Marchjuly, Eliasch's proof of going to RADA is this and many other editorial pieces so presumably she went http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/much-ado-about-amanda-eliasch-6411222.html. Spikequeen ( talk) 16:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Today I phoned him and Amanda did indeed study at RADA, he did teach Eliasch and she went under the name of Amanda Gilliatabove which makes it seem as if you somehow know him, perhaps personally or professionally. If this is the case, then it's possible that you have a conflict of interest with the subject matter, and other might see this a you trying to push a specific point of view. If you are connected to Watson in some way, then I suggest you read " Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide" just to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia's COI policies are. - Marchjuly ( talk) 22:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
There is an ANI discussion now taking place that may involve this article and one or more editors who have contributed to it. It can be found here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Due to their persistent disruptive editing Aromavic is now subject to a topic ban on Amanda Eliasch. This means s/he is strictly prohibited from making any edits on this subject anywhere on Wikipedia, including this article and its talk page. Hopefully this will bring an end to the incessant attacks on this article. However if s/he should violate the ban, an administrator should be notified or a notice posted on WP:ANI. Also any edits made in violation of the ban should be reverted, no matter how innocuous they may seem. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 06:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)