Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m typo |
AnonEMouse (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 38:
****(Edit conflict) I remain unimpressed by the fact that a cable channel that specifically programs recycled documentaries is recycling this one. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 18:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
***Reasonable disagreement is one thing but straw man arguments insult both of us. Yes indeed, the NZ Herald published a story in July about a demonstration at Parliament. It did not discuss Charlotte in biographical terms and gave no information on her disease or recovery. It said she wore pink. (Did you actually read my post?) Please note that when the NZ government announced in 2007 that the meningitis vaccine would be distributed for free in 2008, Charlotte was not mentioned at all. Also note, for what it's worth, that Charlotte's '''own web site''' has not been updated since December, 2006. One of the things that distinguishes an encyclopedic event from newspaper coverage is the persistence of interest. I have not previously advocated for deletion on BLP grounds, but if this article is kept, then ''according to our own policies'' this article will remain frozen in amber, unable to be updated, since she is no longer of sufficient interest to generate reliable sources. Even if Charlotte herself was to try to amend the article in 2019 to say, "Charlotte graduated high school this year and has completely adjusted to life with prosthetics" we would have to delete it for lack of verifiability. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman will forever be a crippled 3-year old, since that is when the press moved on to someone else and the flow of reliable information ceased. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 18:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: That's not correct. A person's self-published statement, such as their web site, is a fine source for non contentious, non unduly self-serving items like that high school graduation, that's called [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves]]. If she wants to put something like that in our article, that's exactly what she does, she puts it on her web site. And you can see that is exactly what the parents are doing; as you wrote, the last newspaper article was in July, but the website shows a fine video of Charlotte ''walking'' (given a generous interpretation of that term) at the end of December. --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 18:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
| |||