Talk:Rexella Van Impe
Since it seems no one cares can we just delete Jack Van Impe from Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:3034:127D:34BF:4830:2569:6583 (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Since it seems that Rexella has pretty much no notability outside her husband's TV show, can we merge these two articles? DJ Clayworth 7 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)
- I agree, this article should be merged with Jack_Van_Impe. Edrigu 23:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- It was merged, if you check the history: [1]. Then User:Mike walker1 unilaterally broke the redirect ([2] and [3]), and the article seems to be in a poor state now. I will restore the version to the redirect. Rexella doesn't seem to have enough about her (independent of her husband) to warrant an article. -Phoenixrod 04:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. She's an individual like he is & making her own choice to participate in JVIM,
even if her own religious beliefs don't assign her such autonomy apart-from-husband. And
based upon the show's dubious content, who is to say what she actually believes in real life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike walker1 (talk • contribs) 8 July 2006
Stop reverting edit
To anonymous user 4.224..../Mike walker1/whatever name you choose next, or anyone else who belives Rexella deserves her own article: we need verifiable external material (that is, non-Wikipedia, reputable, published sources) that asserts Rexella's encyclopedic value independent of her husband and his show. Is there anything at all notable about Rexella as an individual? Until someone brings forth such material, this article, as per the discussion above, should remain a redirect to Jack Van Impe. This has nothing to do with what we think of the people or show involved; it has everything to do with Wikipedia policy. -Phoenixrod 14:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. Your opinion is that she should be redirected as having no significance independent of her husband. As I already stated, I disagree. Redirect back, I'll revert it back to an independent URL - I have the time and am enjoying it. Wiki is an encylopedia written by it's users, and that is the policy. If you don't like it, try to get my IP banned... ;>) - mikewalker789@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.15.28 (talk • contribs) 29 March 2007
- "As I already stated, I disagree." You have yet to give one single shred of evidence that she is notable independent of her husband. Meanwhile, I have directed you to the relevant policies in my message above. Happy reading! -Phoenixrod 18:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
--
Your opinion is that she should be redirected as having no significance independent
of her husband. I disagree. Wiki is an encylopedia written by it's users, and that
is the policy. Darn!
"You have yet to give one single shred of evidence that she is notable independent of her husband."
LOL. Default & presumption, would be individual pages. Burden is on you to establish she is not an independent individual, but rather some form of subservient to husband.
Hey, maybe she's an appliance... ;>)
- MW - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike walker1 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
--
I'm back. This is fun!
;>)
-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike walker1 (talk • contribs) 17 August 2008