Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Rodgers

: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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Andrea Rodgers]]=

:{{la|Andrea Rodgers}} ([{{fullurl:Andrea Rodgers|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Rodgers}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable blogger; may have been written by the subject herself, an act of COI. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

:* I already had her blocked due to username violation, as well as for obvious reasons. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

:: Note Speedy delete requested for The Courage Cup and declined. Now at AfD too here. Smartse (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

:Delete BLP doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE (standard for Blogger?), in addition to the COI autobiography status of the article -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - Non-notable, vanity article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Annoyed Keep -- despite the blatant conflict of interest in the article's origin, the falsehoods she's now putting into her blog about our ethical standards and COI rules, and the repeated personal attacks on me in said blog, the case has now been established that she is sufficiently notable in some circles. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable and a blatant piece of self promotion. Smartse (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Subject wrote on Twitter that she stayed up all night adding herself to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poligal (talk • contribs) 20:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Self promotion with no particular notability. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, likely conflict of interest. -Quartermaster (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above.Tyrenon (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Despite there being some news coverage about the person (some of the references only have the person mentioned in passing, and are not about her), there are the auto-biographical issues (the creator/main contributor most definitely is the subject), COI issues, and non-notability to consider. Also, in trying to clean the article up from its many, many WP:WTA and WP:NPOV issues, I noticed new usernames being created solely to edit this article (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Rodgers&action=history history]), some to insert insulting comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Rodgers&diff=292002245&oldid=291999756], and others to continue to add peacock words/make the subject seem more important than she is. I believe heading this off at the pass by deleting it now would be of best interest with regards to WP:BLP issues, as well as the issues noted above. Ariel♥Gold 15:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not believe this page should be deleted. According to WP:BLP, page deletion should normally be the last resort. In keeping with this, I have removed non-notable, un-sourced, self-serving, and vague references. Per WP:BLPEDIT, this is not vandalism. A living person can be notable even if they create their original entry. And a page can be made neutral even if it was originally created as non-neutral. I believe this person is notable because she has been recognized by peers as a reputable relationship advice blogger and the controversy between herself and the upcoming reality show "Blonde Charity Mafia" which airs this July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitmikazuki (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not believe this page should be deleted. Subject is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.179.129 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • [Note: See update below] Weak keep on the contingency that the article be radically revised to remove all unsouced material, bring in line with WP:BLP and uses only non-blog citations. Undoubtedly there is much in this article that violates WP:YOURSELF and WP:PROMOTION. However, I believe the subject may still pass WP:BIO based on the following sources:

:* [http://www.ontaponline.com/view_article.php?article_id=11401 OnTap], a Washington-area magazine with an [http://www.ontaponline.com/contact editorial team], conducted an interview with her.

:* [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2009/01/warning-dependence-on-facebook-twitter-could-be-hazardous-to-your-business029.html PBS MediaShift]'s Mark Glaser included her among four subjects of a reported column that also featured video blogger Cali Lewis and Twitter's Biz Stone.

:* [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/2008/10/rs-blonde22.html Washington Post]'s Reliable Source column also reported on her charitable activities (and related media attention) last year.

:In short, I think this article can be saved. It won't look anything like what its subject wanted in the first place, but if someone had come along with these sources and written something cautious and conservative, this deletion debate probably would never have come up. If nobody else will volunteer to make these cuts, I can try to do this by tomorrow afternoon (Wednesday) EDT. WWB (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

::Strong Keep After working with this article, it is clear the subject easily passes the general notability guideline, with multiple dedicated stories in the periodicals listed above, as well secondary coverage in CNN, the Washington Times and regional newspapers. Much of the sourcing actually meets WP:RS, even the first-party citations, it was just hard to tell given the original self-promotional tone and non-encyclopedic details. Perhaps this article began life as a vanity article, but that's not a reason to delete it per se. I've now improved it, and I will continue working to improve it, but this article now deserves to stay. I don't get involved in deletion debates often, but if one can move to close in favor of keeping an article, I'd like to do so now. WWB (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - The article is now well referenced from independent sources. Good work in starting to clean up this article. It now passes the basic notability guidelines. Varbas (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. This gets weirder by the day: [http://askmissa.com/tag/wikipedia/ Reference to this AfD on the subject's blog] -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • follow-up - it's getting worse: she's getting bad advice, "“Actually, there is no policy against paying someone to be your ‘wiki-representative’– I do this kind of work professionally. However, Wikipedia does not make this obvious to people, and I suppose it’s been in their interest to maintain this impression. After all, who wants a flood of PR professionals trying to game the system? That said, I think this will eventually change, and more people will be doing what I do. ”" and relaying it to her readers as The Suppressed Truth about Wikipedia; and making repeated personal attacks on me and other members of the "Wiki gestapo" in that blog. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I've no idea how much contact with 'real life' OrangeMike has (or has had), but I certainly have had plenty - at all sorts of levels from the real peerage to 'working class' burglars - and lower. And I still consider this article to be a load of puff. By 'wiki-representatives', does she mean those would-be advertising agencies that put spam pages up here (and whose work usually gets speedily deleted...)? Or are there admins for sale to block deletions? Whichever, is there a WikiGestapo? How does one join it? Invitation or application? Peridon (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:* [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS294US294&q=Wikipedia+management&btnG=Search Wikipedia Management] is a service offered by companies like [http://newmediastrategies.net/capabilities/analyze/wikipedia-management/ New Media Strategies] (first entry on the search) who say on their site "NMS also offers a Wikipedia Audit service, in which we identify problems and opportunities with the pre-existing Wikipedia articles that can be addressed by NMS’ established Wikipedians." This isn't the first time I'm coming across this service, many PR agencies do it. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

::*Comment The "bad advice" OrangeMike refers to is mine, so naturally I disagree with his characterization. As a matter of fact, I also work for New Media Strategies (NMS) and crafted the language on our website that is quoted above. Please note from my comment to Ms. Rodgers that I am also concerned about WP:SPAM.

:::Some background: I've been a Wikipedia contributor for my own enjoyment and (hopefully) others' edification since mid-2006. I first worked with an uninvolved editor to create the article about NMS in late 2007. I started researching this area more closely, and in early 2008 I created a separate, disclosed account for NMS-related work. That user page explains how I make certain to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines -- especially WP:COI -- and includes a list of articles to which I have contributed from that account. Recent work I am proud of includes cleaning up some WP:BLP and related issues on John Ashcroft's article (see discussion on his talk page beginning here).

:::I think it is important that the subjects covered by Wikipedia articles be able to join the discussion about what is contained in those articles. Even organizations have interests and concerns that are similar to BLP, although not identical. I do realize that there are some here who may be very skeptical of this kind of work. However, as Spaceman7Spiff notes, it's inevitable that people will try. I submit that it's better to encourage those who are willing to do so openly and honestly, working through the community. I don't think there is anything in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines against this, and I think it would be a serious problem if there was. Perhaps an existing problem is that there is no policy that specifically addresses this subject.

:::For what it's worth, Ms. Rodgers is neither a client of mine nor of New Media Strategies. She happens to be the Twitter acquaintance of a colleague who had mentioned her activity to me. As my first comment above makes clear, I thought it was a badly flawed article -- and it still is flawed -- but I also could see that it met WP:BIO. I was sympathetic; I'm very cognizant of how non-obvious many of our principles can be to outsiders and how steep the learning curve is. I saw this a chance to help teach someone else about how Wikipedia works, rather than to WP:BITE a potential newbie.

:::Anyway, I guess those are my key points. Obviously this discussion will close soon, so I'd like to invite anyone who has disagreements or concerns back to my talk page to discuss them. It's a subject I am very much invested in, and the more discussion the better. Cheers, WWB (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

:::: * Actually OrangeMike is right, your disagreement is misplaced. Refer WP:COI#Financial, "If you fit either of these descriptions: 1. you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); ....then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest". While it isn't illegal to edit in such circumstances, what any PR agency does by editing client articles is clearly in violation of the spirit of the entire collaborative and neutral aspect of Wikipedia. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

:::::*If the basic issue is that my e-mail to Ms. Rodgers didn't properly convey the nuances of following COI, then that is a fair point. I concede that it wasn't as carefully explained as I've attempted here; she had previously written that Wikipedia policy expressly forbid such a thing, and I simply wanted to correct that. As for WP:COI#Financial, it has been very influential on my activity as a representative of NMS and I think it's a sound policy although, as previously stated, I think it may be incomplete. I also take to heart bold-faced clause from the top of COI: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I support this whole-heartedly, and I recognize that I cannot always discern where the line is, so where I suspect an intended edit may be controversial -- or I want to create a new article (see here, for example) -- that's where I seek input from neutral editors first. And when I make direct edits without prior discussion, they tend to be of the Non-controversial variety. For an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit," I think these are reasonable and guideline-supported precautions for ensuring compliance with COI. Just as importantly, I believe they are very much in the spirit of Wikipedia's principles of collaboration and neutrality. WWB (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  • : DELETE - Allowing articles such as this to be included in Wikipedia will dilute its value and credibility. The subject notes she is a socialite, philanthropist, and blogger. On no account are her achievements particularly noteworthy. A check on alex for web traffic to her blog notes that is ranked 500,000+ most trafficked site. [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.askmissa.com Site statistics]. Further, a philanthropist is generally one who endows causes with their own wealth whereas subject appears to be an event promoter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.245.145 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Even with these improvements to the article, she's still not notable - Vartanza (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC).
  • Delete - The fact that this article has survived this long is concerning to me... Wikipedia's sharp eyes are either overworked or growing indifferent. Justification for deletion is the simple fact that the article's subject has not done any of sufficient notability other than, it appears, to try to be notable. Subject's noted self-creation of the article (according to her own blog) is immediate and irrefutable grounds to kill the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.83.101 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: I have a blog, do I get an article too? Sheesh Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment None of these additional votes for deletion address the fact that the subject of the article has more than enough news coverage, from a variety of news sources, to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Remaining objections here appear to be solely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. WWB (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment: Editor WWB appears to be a paid agent specializing in electronic marketing and exploiting Wikipedia for commercial promotional purposes. WWB's opinion on matter is not objective and potential appears that there may be a conflict with New Media Strategies and article's subject Andrea Rodgers. WWB is the lone voice advocating for a Save of article while practically all others are delete, with exception of one weak keep. Bottom line, media sources name Rodgers in articles but they are not ABOUT her. None of her purported accomplishments rise to the level worthy of recognition and maintenance on Wikipedia. Again, just delete this thing, it is not even worth the discussion. If WWB or some other person can note on achievement worthy of note on the subject, please present it. Further, appears previous Save attempt and other keep comments were by sock-puppet/bogus accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.97.70 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2009 (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.