Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Pamela Holt

~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Pamela Holt
No notable quotes; given name of creator, may be vanity entry. — Poetlister 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lone quote is utterly unverifiable (shows up in no kind of search) - apparent vanity nature of the entry suggests that the subject could have made it up on the spot! BD2412 T 17:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I almost nominated this page myself when I went to clean it up some. Unless a verifiable source can be found for the lone quote, I'm inclined to agree that it should be deleted. ~ UDScott 17:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Thanks Poetlister for pointing out the vanity pages both here and on Wikipedia. It seems a block for the username should take effect, too. @pple 17:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I was undecided about this on RC and I am happy that Poetlister is correct here -- Herby talk thyme 17:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless a remarkable quote(s) from a reliable source is added. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: now also nominated for deletion in Wikipedia. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no claim of notability. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 20:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure vanity page. --Ubiquity 22:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is an interesting case of reliable sourcing, more for Wikipedia than for us. Based on the universal self-identification for the editor here, at WP, and on IMDb, it seems that this is the actress herself establishing information in three visible places. I believe IMDb allows this if the user can confirm their identity or work through an established agency to create or update their bios. (I'm not especially impressed with IMDb's editorial work here, as they seemed to have allowed Holt to add two very similar bios under two variations on her name.) Wikipedia has a clear conflict of interest policy that strongly frowns on editing one's one article, and the fact that Holt appears to have established the IMDb article and then used it to justify her Wikimedia articles suggests that the WP article won't last long. (She appears to have a rather modest resumé anyway so far — 5 acting jobs in 14 years and two stints supporting someone else's music.) Wikiquote does occasionally allow folks to edit their own articles as long as there is no question of notability and the quotes are scrupulously sourced, neither of which apply here at the moment. But I'll give her a chance to muster some evidence before voting. One point: we don't block people just for vanity editing, especially on the first offense. We might not keep the article, but let's assume good faith and simply advise her about our policies and practices. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course we don't block her for vanity, but rather for violating username policy (Item #2, part 2 clearly states Usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, unless that verifiably is your name...). However, since she doesn't appear to be notable enough (if that account really belongs to the Pamela Holt person), I have no more concerns regarding the existence of such account. @pple 07:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The email account is enabled so I'm going to drop her a note explaining about user name policies here and on Wikipedia. I'm also going to ask her for evidence of notability in reliable sources and remarkable quotes; explaining to her that both Wikisource and Wikipedia entries need to be based on reliable sources. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * She's already e-mailed us asking why her articles on both sites were being deleted, I pointed her to this discussion. I hope your e-mail correspondence has gone/is going well! :-)  Cbrown1023    talk   21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's close but I'd argue that she is notable enough. However, the quote is not worth having as well as being unsourced.--Cato 22:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Holt has now been closed and the WP article deleted. I was a little surprised at the fairly modest participation. Two of the five participants were Wikiquotians (FloNight and myself). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd have loved to participate myself. Actually, it was three (BD2412).--Poetlister 17:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, BD2412. Apparently the bold yellow highlighting in your WP signature temporarily blinded me — or I forgot how to count. &#9786; ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)