Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Frances

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. Apart from Kelly Frances herself, nobody is of the view that this article should be kept. Sandstein 20:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Frances

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are plenty of claims in this article that should make her notable but few if any are actually supported by RS. Most of the content is largely exaggerated and the article is clearly a a commissioned piece. I have attempted several times to clean this up but am at a loss... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the subject of this article. I just received a call from one of bookers. My management team was responsible for some of its input, but hardly all of it. I feel that all facts are supported by 3rd party sources (interviews, newspapers of different nations, magazines) though language would be an annoyance for you, and I am sorry for this - and if not, I would welcome you to delete them. However, this has managed to find much of my unknown press, and I feel the full deletion would be dishonest and wrong. May I be of assistance here? I spent years on English TV, but I don't feel that is necessarily "special". I don't know all information is accurate in terms of praise, but I am the person this article states I am and quotes (some of them nastier than i would like;)) are facts so far as I understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.109.5.164 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pls define |R|S: national newspapers and youtube videos are not reliable sources? I am unclear, and wish to be of help. \thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.109.5.164 (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I I do wish to make it clear that I feel somewhat offended at the use of the language used by the editor - specifically, "exaggerated". or calling my activism work the equivalent of "spam" after documented victories in global legislation? pls advise. Any data that is not factual should go, that makes sense. Should 'I' just attempt to edit it to show only quotations or facts by 3rd parties? Help a gal out here? I am just fine with these kinds of deletions but sure, I knew of the page, and while I felt initially uncomfortable, I grew to feel it was worthy and important of a lifetime of activism* and cultural work as Korea's main English rep. Few know the "collaborated reality" of years of as trade that I worked in and fought to change and Wiki managed to pull together many sources for what is actually truthful, something no media has done. I don't understand how national newspaper interviews, radio, TV, magazines, published works, quotes by notable experts... or statements made by celebrities are not "reliable". Additionally, productions and videos not owned by me. Last, "I" contacted wikipedia out of concern, not to incite the deletion of the page after ***4 years. This is very disappointing and seems unprofessional. I did not - nor did my affiliates, add all of this content. I am feeling disappointed with the way this is handled as years passed and I saw wiki assist changes, though i may have caused the issue by revising the grammer when i fell ill. I am genuinely grateful for Chrissy and wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.109.5.164 (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel deleting what is documented and truthful is dishonest, but your call. I take strong exception to its deletion, but am open to its editing - and any amount of editing. If nothing else, consider the activism links pls. they are globally documented and worthy to many. my career is of far less interest to me. I learned my short will go to Cannes and have more press I assume, but its not that aspect of my life which I feel made me notable in Koreas - I am a known activist and yes, voice actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamediamissus (talk • contribs) 06:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Does not meet WP:GNG. WP:RS insufficient to support content or establish notability. WP:ARTSPAM--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chrissy, I shared a more reasonable reply with an admin, making a suggestion to preserve what I feel is a globally sourced, well documented account of important work that led to global legislation change and Korean public attitude, and also an apology for emotionality. Thanks for your hard work. I have been a little under the weather and was unsure how to process this. Wishing you the best, and happy to take your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamediamissus (talk • contribs) 06:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. almost entirely promotional in intent, and and I do not think the existing article can be rescued. That the subject of the article seems to feel they are entitled to having an article here is not an argument for keeping. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it is artspam I would say the subject wanting the article argues against. Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion. I did not use it as such, this is your opinion based on very little. I see quotes from sources. I am not aware of what article you wish to "re-rescue". I have now asked for days.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)ok, wow. thank you, i guess. I asked for the source you requested. sorry i couldn't be of help.[reply]

Hello sir,

I wish to suggest that your team be more professional, as you suggest acting in 'good faith' or assuming such. I brought my page to your attention for help. I was accused of fraud, being paid, and then this language:

(not directed to me in a courteous way, nor were my queries answered). I feel this shows pettiness on the part of your team, and decreases your credibility. Regardless of their many reads on my character, there were more references than I could handle, nbut no one made any direct suggestions to me. I don't wish to use, financially support, or promote this service in future. I was very courteous. This is not acceptable.

Delete. almost entirely promotional in intent, and and I do not think the existing article can bevrescued. Theat the subject of the article seems to fell they are entitled to having an article here is not an argument for keeping. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC) No, as it is artspam I would say the subject wanting the article argues against. Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)ok, wow. thank you, i guess. I asked for the source you requested. sorry i couldn't be of help

I had much more faith in your system prior, and find this highly childish.

I am sorry to bother you, but felt it worthy to mention

- - You may edit the article during the discussion

Shortcut WP:EDITATAFD You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones).---i was instructed not to do so and never replied to (told not to until receiving a reply), then when i did try to do this with what seemed to be your needs, it was rejected.--- I was instructed not to edit my article until notice. You have not provided me proper protocol.*** I read that I should be bold*, and admin are encouraged to remedy errors. I see many, many sources. I am only reading petty conclusions. I am confused as to how this reflects neutrality on your part, or how you feel there are no sources, or my feeling a topic is worthy makes it "unworthy"? I feel you require feedback at this time. We all do. If the syntax was the issue, it would have been of great help to be told. You did not afford me this courtesy. Why is my opinion an issue over facts? I am confused as to how this reflects neutrality on your part, or how you feel there are no sources, or my feeling a topic is worthy makes it "unworthy"? I feel you require feedback at this time. We all do. If the syntax was the issue, it would have been of great help to be told. You did not afford me this courtesy. Why is my opinion an issue over facts? I was assumed to be someone with poor motives. you don't consider this is untrue. I feel this is contrary to your guidelines. I welcome and hope for your reply. I truly feel this is difficult to understand based on a plethora of sources on an issue of notability, less myself, but more so ensuing events I was part of. Again, my opinion is not on trial, according to your guidelines. Is it? I wish for amicability and feel this is a genuine mishandling. I feel protocol i read was not followed upon assistance offered by myself.

Best regards

Delete. Promotional whether paid or not, and if it was written or largely contributed to by her agent, then it is paid work. Would need a complete rewrite (WP:TNT). It's an affront to the work of thre vounteers here to have to trawl through 40 or so 'sources' to find that none of hem are relevant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---yet this was something I felt too, and tried to do, unsuccessfully. I feel this issue has touched the lives of many, as the petition references has over 13,000 signatures re the issue, the directors referenced are acclaimed, and i feel this is a poorly thought out conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamediamissus (talk • contribs) 07:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC) ''''Bold text' I wish to have no more part in your community if this level of professionalism and courtesy is what i can expect from it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Frances[reply]

Ok, I asked a friend to "improve" as the page had invited, and it did not save his changes. This was something I felt was helpful - deleting all but very precise facts. I don't understand your view of myself as "excepted from your community", as i didn't realize you have a membership, but pls advice if a simpler, factual based page is possible as I don't see why I am considered a spammer - please define spammer, or "what makes an insider?" I never expected this nature of issue and it is difficult for me to accept without understanding. If you maintain this view, which seems petty in my opinion at best and unregulated or contrary to your guidelines, then I truly have no idea what your purpose is. I will cancel my financial support, as i no longer find this ethical. I have been in touch with your Canadian PR contact out of concern for what I feel is action unbecoming to your organization and as a journalist and broadcaster, who made honest attempts to be helpful and was treated in the manner I was, I feel I did wikipedia a service. I advice you to consider the expectation of professionalism when using language that is public if you invite trust, not alienates that is poorly explained and appears semantic based and contrary to your guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamediamissus (talk • contribs) 06:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamediamissus (talk • contribs)

I wish to be clear that I did not write the entirety of content or the majority at all and this is not 'MY' page at all, and I am under no impression it is. It is information. I recently admitted to improving grammar as i would do so and was encouraged to improve. When I did examine sources, I found many more that seemed much more to what you sought, and I had not known this. It is clear they cannot be added, though I was never answered pending your initial accusation of my being a black box seo hire, a serious accusation. I truly felt I would be treated as someone politely asking to be helped or to assist. As per your labelled request for improvement, a friend offered to "improve" via fact adding as the page had invited, they claim to support this issue, and while I read that you request all contributors be unconnected, 4 years past during which you had no issues with content being added to a page that discussed me in many ways, albeit poorly - and that is a long time for such a sudden blast of accusations. This led me to wish to assist you quickly and as "human judgment is above your rules" according to your inclusionist, I wished to err on the side of being helpful, and it did not save any changes. This was something I felt was helpful to YOU noting chrissy's frustration in her public comments- deleting all but very precise facts. I wanted to be courteous. I don't understand your view of myself as "excepted from your community", as I didn't realize you have a membership, but pls advise me on how to view this community and my role now. "what makes an insider?" Are all contributors evaluated and assumed to be nefarious as rapidly as I was upon asking for help? Are their guidelines for this? I am a volunteer too, and for a cause I believe in, and I respect those who give of their gifts. I simply expect more from them as I expect them to care more than those seeking a salary alone. I never expected this nature of issue and it is difficult for me to accept without understanding. If you maintain this view, which seems petty in my opinion at best and unregulated or contrary to your guidelines, then I truly have no idea what your purpose is. I will cancel my financial support, as i no longer find this ethical. I have been in touch with your Canadian PR contact out of concern for what I feel is action unbecoming to your organization and as a journalist and broadcaster who made honest attempts to be helpful and was treated in the manner I was, I feel I did wikipedia a service to improve it. I advise you to consider an expectation of professionalism when using language that is public if you invite trust, not chatter alienates, and is poorly explained, or appears semantic based and contrary to your guidelines. I also requested options, and was given none, but I was told quite quickly I am a spammer, an outsider, (and all member surely begin at the beginning, yet this is my beginner experience after reaching out - a poor example in my opinion for other beginners) - essentially, not part of your community due to my use of an adjective - something others should possibly be warned of as they struggle to learn about what is now feeling like an exclusionary creation? I implore you to view my comments with respect as i have that for you, and am truly confused, seeking understanding. If this is the manner in which you proceed, I wish no part of the community and will stop educating myself and advise others to be cautious. I am now exhausted of this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamediamissus (talk • contribs) 07:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your comments above I feel i show you far more consideration than you show users and wish to be exempt from this community as this is demeaning and frankly, contradictory. pls advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamediamissus (talk • contribs) 07:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.