Talk:Stephanie Adams/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Who", etc.

Offtoriorob made this strange set of edits (none of which had an edit summary). Comments:

1. The way to ask questions such as this is with the appropriate template (e.g. the "Who" template), not text.
2. The answers are in the footnotes.
3. There is no point redlinking to sapphica.com as it clearly doesn't merit an article. (Indeed, I only named it outside the footnotes in response to an odd demand by Offtoriorob.)

Offtoriorob says on my user talk page:

Please stop removing my requests for explanatory detail in the body of the article - if you have issues with my requests - discuss on talk - please stop reverting, thanks

Sure, let's discuss. Why the need to say in article text who said such and such when a footnote makes this perfectly clear? -- Hoary (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you're too busy to discuss, but not too busy to remove all of this material, because of what you have decided is "undue focus on dated sexual preference". And thereupon you went off to an entirely unrelated talk page to add a comment there.

Do you want to discuss, or do you want to own?

Again, I have not the slightest interest in this woman's personal life. But she makes a big deal out of this aspect of it. I have no objection to scrapping all the material on her personal life, though this should follow a discussion here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In a line and a half you added lesbian three times - she's married with a child - give her a chance to update and stop focusing or dated sexual statement. - marriage and children are encyclopedic-ally notable in all situations. Off2riorob (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Adams back and forth between lesbian/straight comes not only from RS, but directly from the Adams as Hoary notes. Furthermore Adams is someone notable for being a lesbian Playmate, also documented. Her sexual preferences, fall outside of the BLP mandate to err on the side of caution.-- Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are claiming this living person is a notable lesbian? If your claim is true that should be in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

She was the first Playmate who was a lesbian, however she considers herself to no longer be a lesbian. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that she self-reported to be a lesbian (first playmate to do so) and later got married is covered by numerous sources, so its a notable piece of information. Its not defamatory or based on speculation.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It appear that saying your a lesbian is good for sales - we have no detail at all of relationships with women. Clearly she is not a lesbian now - as she has a child and is married to a man. Off2riorob (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. Just because she is married to a man and has a child does not mean she cannot be a lesbian. HOWEVER she has stated publicly that she is no longer a lesbian. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Good for sales? Who cares? My point is why the hell are people afraid of the word lesbian? I don't care about sales or whether she actually slept with women or whatever. My point is solely based on the fact that she self-reported to be lesbian, this got news coverage, and she ran a lesbian topic-based website, and then she got married to a male and this got covered by the news as well. Is this 2011 or 1911?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing questions inside the article?

Off2riorob, is there a reason you are trying to foster a discussion in the article instead of in talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasttimes68 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

overuse of the word lesbian

After reading the article again, I came to the same conclusion that the word "lesbian" was overused and tried to edit it so it does not give the article undue weight. I do feel the following facts need to be included in the article in some form.

1. she was the first lesbian playmate
2. later she claimed she was no longer a lesbian

--Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So what?

Apparently, Ms Adams may well have indicated in the past that she was sexually attracted to persons of her own gender. More recent events indicate that she may possibly have changed her mind. What the %*&% has this got to do with anything remotely of interest to Wikipedia? She appears to have made a successful career out of looking attractive while not wearing clothes (which I'm sure she does), and no doubt also by encouraging a certain amount of fantasizing about her sexual proclivities. If people are gullible enough to mistake such fantasizing for reality, and are now disappointed that their fantasies are no longer sustainable, that is their problem, not Wikipedia's. Regardless of who she is attracted to, it isn't likely to be you (or me), so how about focusing the article on content that is (a) verifiable, and (b) relevant to what makes Ms Adams notable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing you said that is relevant is (a) and (b). I would also mention that BLP has stringent guidelines about sexualitymissues. That being said, the information is verifiable and arguably notable as the subject was a mild activist. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no content in the article to support your claim - "the subject was a mild activist" - Off2riorob (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.goddessy.com/PressInformation/MediaCoverage.htm --Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello? - There is no content in the articlethat supports your claim - "the subject was a mild activist" - Off2riorob (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

She attended events for HRC, gave interviews to activist publications. She's no Joan Baez, but yes she did support a cause.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is stretching it, though, somewhat to call her activist based on the current sourcing. FWIW, also, if your going to use the sources noted on the SPS page, you're better of citing that source directly. This makes verification easier. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Some good points there, A Grump. I don't know how it is that Playmates are automatically significant, but the consensus is that they are; so OK, for now I take this as axiomatic. It does seem that being photographed nude green-lights readers' interests that are normally frowned on, and that WP caters (panders?) to these, stating dimensions (whether real or fictional) and so forth. Further, it seems to me (outside the US) that Americans are fascinated by ethnicity/inclination-pigeonholing. I'm not keen on this, but WP does offer "LBGT judges" and more. There's no obvious reason why Playmates should be exceptions to the latter. (As for ethnicity, I wondered about "Jewish Playmate", searched, and found this and this, and there could be more; surely Jewishness doesn't add significance to being a Playmate.) I don't see many mentions in RSes of SA's having been a Playmate (not that I'm doubting that she was one), but when I do see them they often say that she's lesbian. Thus this factoid (which I don't suppose is any more fictional than the dimensions) does seem significant for people who are absorbed by Playmates. Indeed, for a time, SA made a big thing of it herself. Should WP make a big thing of it too? No it shouldn't. Should WP mention it at all? I don't know or much care. If demands received via OTRS encourage adherence to policy, balance or both, fine. But WP should not follow OTRS demands or skew balance merely because of demands for this. And if the sources are inadequate for writing up lesbian whatever, then they're even less adequate for the aunts, the family life, and more. -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, coverage is relatively sparse, and she is not the most notable person in the world. The easiest solution here would just be to delete the article and leave it at that. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with deleting the article. -- Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A few things:

1. Hoary, Playmates are no longer automatically notable. That got shot down at least a year ago now. Now they're just listified.
2. However much you don't like measurements being listed, the fact is that Playboy's body measurements have been used in several peer reviewed real world scientific studies.
3. A lot of things aren't related to why a person is notable and yet in the effort of compiling a thorough biography of the person, those things are included. We could throw out place/date of birth for most people as it has nothing to do with their professions or achievements. We could throw out their ethnicity, religion, etc etc. when they aren't notable for those things. But we include them all. Take a look at any "good" or "featured" biography article and it will likely list all of that in some form. I don't understand this fear of putting the word "lesbian" in the article. She once identified as such, worked with various LGBT groups/sites/etc, and it was noted by several reliable sources. So why shouldn't we at least mention it? Yes, three times in two lines is annoying just to read but I don't see the problem with covering her past. Jimmy Hendrix spent just a year in the Army and was a terrible soldier but we have an entire section devoted to his service. It bears little relation to why he's notable and yet it fills in the biography, so we keep it.
4. What is it about this woman? This article? Not even Anna Nicole Smith's or Pamela Anderson's article have gone through this much fussing and fighting! They are so much more notable and both Playmates and yet it is this article that perennially gets protected due to edit warring.

That's it for now... Dismas|^(talk) 09:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I sit corrected. My opinion of WP has gone up a notch. Not that I'm eager to delete articles on people who don't interest me; it's that I don't see any special significance to Playboy; WP long seemed a Playboy fan club.
2. I sit corrected. My opinion of peer reviewed real world scientific studies may go down a notch; I just hope against hope that the studies used the figures as descriptions and not facts.
3. Fine with me.
4. I have my theories, but this isn't the place to express them. -- Hoary (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that a good amount, though certainly not all, of the Playmates are rather extensively covered in sources, mainly Hollywood-esque reliable sources (Hollywood Reporter, E!, ect.). So make sure that you do a decent enough search on a Playmate before AfDing any of them, since there is a good chance that you'll find sources. Also, if it is decided to delete a Playmate page, make sure to redirect it to the list it is a part of, since the Playmates are all covered in lists (and, as a list, they're certainly notable). Silverseren^C 10:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just use the sources

Similar, but different, to another article about a gay man that Rob and I were involved in, this situation is pretty straightforward. Because she has specifically and actively shown that she is no longer a lesbian, we shouldn't be using any categories in relation to that. However, for coverage in the article, we should be following the sources, which show that her calling herself a lesbian in the past and her actions in relation to that are a clear part of her notability, with both her Playmate actions and her creation of websites.

First off, I don't believe this source is used in the article yet, so you might want to add it to shore up some stuff.

Second, according to both the prior source and this direct source, she was given the place of Best Lesbian Sex Symbol in 2004 by Village Voice. This should be in the article.

Third, as this source already in use in the article states, the lesbian community website that she created is called Sapphica. Why isn't this stated in the article, while her Goddessy website is? Silverseren^C 08:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And on a entirely separate note that shouldn't be in the article, but explains a lot, see this source for the likely explanation why she's bisexual now. Oh, and this was linked from another news source. It's hilarious. Silverseren^C 08:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that "Best Lesbian Sex Symbol" is better omitted as a matter of kindness; please see this. ¶ The name "Sapphica.com" appears in footnotes; I think that this is enough. ¶ The Learning Annex misadventure has been discussed to death in the (recently blanked) talk pages; my own opinion is that having tried something new and screwed up at it just once is no big deal, even if adequately documented. ¶ You'll surely have noticed that tempers are flaring over this article; this being so, it's not a good idea to link to hilarious cartoons. -- Hoary (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see why tempers are flaring when this should be a pretty straightforward issue. We follow the sources. Sapphica, being a website that she founded, should have a sentence in the article. It could even be just an extended part of the Goddessy sentence if you added in an "and". Silverseren^C 09:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It may be hilarious (as intended), but tabloid sources, which is practically all of them in this article including the VV "award" (read the text there if in doubt), are poor sources per WP:BLPSOURCES. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Given all the fussing, the flaring of tempers, and that the subject is unhappy with many parts of this article, and that her notability is not great (and very minimal beyond Playboy), I'd like to propose that we redirect this article to the appropriate list of playmates. I find it quite disconcerting, and am unsurprised that the subject has similar feelings, when such a thin article contains such highly personal trivia as measurements, sexuality, and formerly the names of her husband and young son. Her notability stems from a Playboy appearance 19 years ago, and the majority of the rest of the content of the article is fluff. I see little to be gained by keeping the article, and WP:BLP1E would seem to apply, so redirecting makes sense. Is anyone strongly opposed to redirecting? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. My issue with this article has mostly been the subjects repeated attempts to treat this article as an autobiography and as a marketing tool for whatever products she sells.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't have evidence for those allegations, so please don't make them in such a public place. The subject denies editing the article, though people representing her and her company have edited it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I should have said her representatives. I don't know if any editor has actually claimed to be the subject. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This lady has her own official web sites and does not need a "free for all" editing site to place a biography or anything else for that matter. If I were her, I would ask to be removed from this venue entirely. 108.41.20.227 (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

For for the sake of argument, lets pretend you are "this lady". Your wants and desires about the content of this article dont count for more or less than any other editor. Although if you want this article deleted, then I suggest you convince others how un-notable te subject is.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with HJ Mitchell. Most of this is sourced from playboy.com and that is not really an independent source of WP:SIGCOV here, much like an author's bio blurb on his publisher's web site isn't. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Most"? Where do you get "most"? One of the 13 sources is Playboy.com. And among the more well known remaining sources we have Curve magazine, The Late Show with David Letterman, The Village Voice, USA Today, and The New York Times. Dismas|^(talk) 19:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What New York Times coverage? You prolly mean New York Post. And the coverage there is one effing paragraph. [1] You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, okay, Post. Dismas|^(talk) 03:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Fox news[2] Chicago Sun[3] (although they are both about her suing the taxist). Passing mention in Daily News (New York) Playmate salutes veterans. Sorry, too bored to continue, I used this google search[4], there are a few more hits but I have not checked them. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The stuff about about alleged police brutality against her was an AP story thus syndicated; see WP:109PAPERS. And it wouldn't take a terribly notable citizen to be involved to generate that kind of coverage. Like you've not seen "Cops tazer person at public place X" stories. There isn't much biographic material in that. Just try rewriting this article without using the playboy.com reference, and you'll see what I mean. As for the police incident, is there some continued coverage? FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see the benefit in redirecting all these playmate articles to their lists and duplicating the content, but there are editors who care much more dearly about this than I.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• "the subject is unhappy with many parts of this article" -- Gaddhafi is also complaining about his article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Nobody is talking about all playmate articles. I'm not concerned with any other articles. And comparing a model to a crackpot dictator is just ludicrous. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ludicrous is underrated!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to mention that, if you're looking for sources, you should try to look for the direct sources of the excerpts listed on her Media Coverage page. There seems to be more than enough listed there for notability. Silverseren^C 21:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've seen them. 99% of them are passing mentions suitable for reference in a list of playmates with moniker "first self-declared lesbian playmate <redacted>", or some of the 109PAPERS story on her suing the NYPD, but no followup whatsoever. It's just too fragmentary for a biography, unless you consider the playboy.com fluff reliable or encyclopedic. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The 1996 New York Post benefit bash run by her seems notable. Not to mention the August 2003 interview of her in Playboy Magazine (does that count as a primary source?). Her feature in the February 2003 issue of She Magazine. The Human Rights Campaign Foundation thing. The Weekly News coverage. India Times. Really, all of the coverage when she came out as a lesbian in 2004. There's more than enough coverage here of importance to show her notability. Silverseren^C 23:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • I think we should focus on the sustainability of an article not full of fluff rather than just meeting the minimum standards. She's notable for the Playboy appearance 19 years ago, and has attracted some coverage for the taxi driver law suit and a few other things, but nothing that rises above BLP1E, so she's not so notable that she couldn't be adequately covered in a list. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Did you look at the page I linked? There's stuff there that is more than just the taxi driver thing, far more. Silverseren^C 23:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Ok, we leave the article your good hands then. And you've probably not read the talk page archives here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's look at who she is. She was a black playmate in 1992 who came out as gay and then years later switched to straight. That's about it. I think the gay/straight thing is not notable at all. So, the only question to me is whether a black bunny (formerly lesbian) is inherently notable. If not, the article should go. It's true she's gotten a lot of third-party coverage, but that's mainly related to the black-bunny-lesbian thing. The civil lawsuit was derivative - wouldn't have made a blip on the screen if it hasn't been for who she was at that time. Indeed, probably a lawsuit like that brought by any bunny would get coverage. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if it survived an AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you don't think gay/straight issues have any relation to notability is clearly at odds with the media and society. Silverseren^C 00:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Putting the media aside for a moment, can you elaborate on "society"? ¶ Back to media. Thinking that gay/straight has nothing to do with notability does indeed run counter to thinking at media as diverse as LBGT advocacy magazines and the gossip columns of tabloids. But what about other media? Remember, this is a woman in a blue (or bluish) state of the US in the 21st century; it's not as if this were rural Arkansas, the 1950s, or Iran. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Silver, I think coming out as gay may have a relation to a person's notability, but I don't think in and of itself it makes a person notable. The same with bouncing back to straight.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Though I may well have missed something, I haven't noticed discussion of the "Black" angle in what might have some claim to be RSes; rather, it's been the "lesbian" angle. There's been that, and a physical/legal fracas with a taxi driver (removed from the article), and a misadventure in teaching (ditto). Her publication and sales of astrology and fiction have been barely mentioned in RSes; discussion in the recently blanked talk page archives has led to coverage of this being minimal. Disputes with at least two bloggers have been written up by those and other bloggers, but I think not in any RSes; I'm not going to look through the talk page archives, but I don't think that any such material has lasted long in the article. So it's down to "first Playmate to have come out as lesbian", possibly supplemented by some traces of having worked as an LGBT "spokesmodel". Yes, this may (barely) confer "notability" (in the Wikipedia sense of the word) on her. But it seems the feeblest kind of notability (in the normal sense). I find it bizarre that she's demanding via OTRS that the lesbian angle should be expunged even while a page of her own website reproduces material that makes a bigger deal of it than this WP article has ever done. But that aside, she doesn't want it. Since WP isn't an LBGT advocacy or similar site, I don't see why WP should be so keen to include it; but the fact that WP purports to be an encyclopedia should prevent it from merely carrying out the dictates of its biographees, altering their write-ups to accord with their changing tastes. ¶ Well, if we remove the first/ex lesbian component, she seems a regular Playmate. And as pointed out above, these no longer automatically get articles. Solution: replace the existing text with:

#REDIRECT [[List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#November]]

and keep an eye on that article to ensure that it stays much as it is now. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I'll weigh in accordingly on the recent AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like we're just giving up because we have trouble agreeing on how to write the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont think its a question on the article, but whether or not the subject is notable and an article is warranted--Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

April 2012 article recreation

There has been a long-running edit war between editors and sockpuppets related to the subject of this article. Following a recent discussion at WP:ANI regarding the latest skirmish, I noticed that Stephanie Adams had received a fair amount of coverage due to her recent lawsuit win. I got in contact with the subject to ensure that she was ok with having a biography on Wikipedia. She was. Other than offering me links to older versions of the article that existed on the web, Adams provided me no sources and gave me no compensation. My hope is that if there is an article here, perhaps the edit-warring over including her in other areas of Wikpedia will resolve itself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a good bunch of sources in google news[5]. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So what happens when the Learning Annex class gets added back in? The 500 lb gorilla of this article, as it were. Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think that belongs in the article, make a case for it here. I don't know much about it, but it seems fairly trivial. Not only is the biography of a living person and covered by WP:BLP, but you know that this article has been the source of some distress for the subject, so I would hope that you will bear both of those things in mind. This is an attempt to resolve a problem, not inflame one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate your attempt to rewrite this, this article still contains trivial items and relies heavily on primary sources. While the subject might not like the LA class to appear on this article, we shouldn't care one way or another as long as it doesn't show undue weight, and the sources back it up. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your appreciation, but I just counted and there are only four uses of primary sources, out of 27 references, and two of those are only used to show how long a website was online. I'm sure there is room for improvement, but let me suggest once more that given the animosity you have shown to the article subject both on- and off-wiki, you would be well advised to stay as far away from this subject as possible. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that way, then start an ANI discussion and be prepared to provide evidence. In the meantime I will continue to ignore your advice. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Enough time has already been wasted on ANI about the issues surrounding this article. This is an attempt to reduce and hopefully eliminate the edit warring, sockpuppetry, accusations, etc by writing a balanced article that is respectful of the concerns of the subject. You are free to ignore my advice at your own peril, but since you are aware that this is a contentious article, failing to discuss your proposed changes here will likely be seen as deliberate provocation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you seem to know, please enlighten us to the concerns of Ms Adams. Perhaps they can be accommodated. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Privacy policy probably predicates against that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I can only make assumptions based on previous discussions since Adams and I did not discuss any content concerns. I edited and expanded the article based on the sources. I did not leave anything out that I thought should be included, but I did ask Adams to look it over to ensure that she was ok with the article. She was. Do you have any concerns about the article that I can address? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure we all can agree that Ms. Adams seal of approval is not relevant. I do have a question about some of the sources, most notably the offline sources. Did you read them to verify that the contents of the sources accurately describe the relevant claims? Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear - do you have any concerns about the content of the article that I can address? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll review it and edit it if I decide it's lacking, assuming this sruvies DRV/AFD etc. What about the offline articles. Did you actually READ them? Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Your question is argumentative and in bad faith. I am not interested in playing this game with you. You should have been topic-banned long ago. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Strike that personal attack or this will be brought to ANI. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack at all. You would be laughed out of ANI in an instant. Silverseren^C 20:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's no reason for a DRV, the article should be tested by a new AFD if someone wants to nominate it for deletion. But that doesn't mean prior AFD outcome was incorrect at the time (which it what DRV would be for).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that, if someone wants the article deleted, he should have to start a new AfD. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggest that a new AFD isn't beyond imagination right now, the last one was around nine months ago, so perhaps there's something new to discuss? Continuous AFD-warring should be discouraged, but perhaps those who seek to recreate deleted material have something new to bring to the argument. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have reverted this back to the redirect. Its entirely possible the previous afd can be set aside for new information but there was more than a whiff of BLP in the previous discussion and the AFD was courtesy blanked. The policy is clear. Material removed because of BLP concerns can't be restored without a consensus to do so. That means we need a discussion to restore this. DRV is the right place for that. Process wanking is an irritant I know but in BLP matters it behoves us to follow the policies properly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no BLP concerns as per the living person.  This is a discussion page and this is a discussion.  Consensus to restore is based on 27 sources and no concerns about notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is any new consensus at this point, I'm unaware of it. Exisitng consensus was to redirect, due to a mix of notability concerns & BLP. To undo the redirect, shouldn't a new consensus be formed before the article comes back into main? To do otherwise seems to violate the spirit of BRD. On the other hand, I'm not sure if this situation is fits DRV. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have reverted the redirection. Since there seems to be a consensus that there should be another AfD, myself agreeing, that makes it five (Delicious Carbuncle, Milowent, Enric Naval, The Rambling Man, and myself) verses 1 (Spartaz), there should probably be a new AfD. Unscintillating might also be added to the support AfD side and Fasttimes68 might be added to the redirect side, depending on their more specific opinions. Either way, AfD, let's go. Silverseren^C 03:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

slow down. While those editors may support the position you stated for them, not all of them said that. I'm not sure what my position is and would prefer more discussion. I see no need to rush this. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My position is that the BLP issues have been addressed and a DRV is unnecessary (although I do not object to one if it will smooth things over). If someone thinks that notability is still an issue, then they are welcome to start an AfD and I fully expect that someone will do that whether or not there is a DRV. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What rational argument is there to question notability?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That was rhetorical, a non-notable AfD finding would merely return the article to a redirect, which is an editorial decision that can be reached here.  Since we know that we are going to keep the redirect, the only other reason for a deletion discussion is to delete the edit history.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A few comments:

• The subject is perfectly happy and enthusiastic for the article to exist, and is happy with the current information.
• Fasttimes68 I think you really should take, again, the advice of avoiding this topic for a long while. Your involvement is liable to stir up the same dramaz as before and end up with us just deleting the article again.
• The article was deleted after 5 years of disaster to alleviate the pain; in fact it was deleted after I pushed very hard for that to happen (there is an AN/I pr BLP/N thread somewhere about it). It was my hope that after having been removed for so long both Ms. Adams and the editors involved would realise the utility of accommodating each other. There is nothing especially problematic with the material and I think it is probably fine. My one concern is that a DRV/AFD will simply spark up the dramaz again.

My tuppence. I've no major objection to a DRV but I feel it would affirm the content and thereby be simple process wonkery. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Two issues:

1. I have a minor concern related to process in general and less so for this article, that is the actions of a few overriding consensus to put an article back into main. Whether DRV/AfD/Talk is the place to discuss, it sidesteps the issue that current consensus is being ignored while discussion takes place. The bottom line is that the results of a currently existing consensus should remain in place until a new consensus is achieved.
2. The subject is happy about the state of the article. I hope that somoene has told her that Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. That aside, what happens if or when she is NOT happy? The subject only wants "positve" information in this article. If a piece of information is sourced and presented in a NPOV fashion then it is fair game for inclusion. Deleting or holding the content of a sourced, NPOV article hostage due to the concerns of the subject is IMO editorial cowardice and a horrible way to maintain an encyclopedia. Fasttimes68 (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The main reason it was deleted last time was not because of the subject (she was opposed the that solution) but because you couldn't drop the topic. Let me put it this way; you are skirting on very very thin ice by continuing your interactions on this article. My hope is that you will still step back without a topic ban, however. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? I'm responsible? I must have misread the AfD summary that it was my fault. Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

With regard to Fasttimes68's first point, the consensus that was established over 6 months ago related to the article at that time. Part of my expansion of this article is based on something that happened after that time, so I think the old consensus no longer applies. With regard to the second point, I believe we have have a fairly balanced BLP now, but I don't think anyone has suggested that it cannot be changed or that the subject should control the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case I withdraw my concern about consensus being overridden. I don't think RVD is necessary, unless one feels the need to formally state that there is no BLP. Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Delicious Carbuncle--what are the chances of getting some free pics from her? Something representative of her work at Venus or Playboy? – Lionel ^(talk) 03:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Adams is an author, not a teacher.

The tidbit added recently was removed because it appears to be trivia, not a significant fact in Adams' career (of over 20 years in modeling, and over over 12 years in writing). According to the article about the course, Adams seemed to have defied the title of the course and was quoted as saying "I really did marry for love. Honestly-I didn’t care about meeting someone successful. I already had seven figures in the bank, so I didn’t need my husband’s seven figures. Women should find someone they’re really happy with, not just seek out men for their bank account. And if you’re not attracted to a man, the marriage is not going to work out." Perhaps if this was added, they should have added that major comment, which was significant. I might add it back with this mentioning, or simply keep it out because it is trivia (unimportant). 98.14.172.174 (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk page tampering

An example of the removal of comments from this talk page. Better read this. In short, never remove a comment by somebody with whom you disagree: let somebody uninvolved remove it, if it needs to be removed. But I see no reason why this comment needed to be removed. -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Sock edit"

This edit reverts an IP's edit with the summary "sock edit". The IP's talk page doesn't suggest that he or she is accused by anyone of being a "sock". Better not throw around assertions such as this. -- Hoary (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Fully protected

I just fully protected this article on the The Wrong Version. Talk the issues out here, not in edit summaries. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Good move, Sarek. Incidentally: (i) I have restored the old talk material (or anyway that small part of it that had not been "courtesy blanked"), because the reason for its deletion (that there was no article for it to discuss) no longer held. (ii) Fiiinally started a discussion of this article at WP:BLP/N. -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

LGBT activism

(Self-plagiarizing from WP:BLP/N): The section titled LGBT activism has no mention of SA's having done anything of note other than starting and running a website, or having said anything of note. Two of the four sources adduced for this claim that she founded the online lesbian community Sapphica.com, which was active from 2003 until 2009 are sapphica.com itself, one is a press release, and the fourth is this article, which says nothing beyond a bare mention. If Sapphica.com was described (let alone praised) elsewhere, good; otherwise the section seems to exaggerate. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The website and press release links merely substantiate that the site existed and ran from at least 2003 to 2009. There seems to be a higher bar applied to information included in this article than in most articles. The website seems completely uncontroversial - is there any reason not to mention the website? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

First off, I seem to have been commenting on a version that was already old when I made the comment. This mystifies me. Sorry about the confusion. ¶ I'll get to the current version in a moment. In the meantime, since I did bring up that version, let's consider for a moment the online lesbian community Sapphica.com. In that older version of the article, there was a link (c/o Wayback) to the top page of the 31 March 09 version of the site: here. This top page doesn't suggest a lesbian community, let alone LGBT activism: it merely advertises Adams's books. There's a set of links across the bottom. I did not try all of them, but none that I tried until I hit that for calendar was available; the one for calendars was selling "The GODDESSY 2008 monthly horoscopes & photo calendar by Stephanie Adams". ¶ And now let's turn to the current version. It still has a section titled "LGBT activism". But this contains no mention whatever of anything that looks to me like activism. ¶ I'm willing to believe that sapphica.com was a lesbian community website of some note. Do we have any evidence that it was? If we don't, then perhaps the article can just say that it was a website that she ran. -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote this article in an attempt to address a long-standing dispute -- which was successful for a brief time -- but I have no desire to act as proxy for Adams or defend what I consider to be uncontroversial items. I tried to write a biography that was balanced and fair to Adams. In my experience, other BLPs are not generally given this level of scrutiny. Removing this article from lists such as July 24 births seems petty and vindictive. The wisest course of action would be to forgive past transgressions and deal with the Wikipedia side of this conflict, but I can't see that happening and I don't wish to be a part of what comes next. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Adams gave speeches for Gay Pride several times, as her appearances were noted here and here. These are just a few brief links among many other sources that confirm her LGBT activism and if you search the Archive site or here, you can see for yourself that sapphica.com was created for the purpose of being an online resource for the LGBT community. ~Buk. T. 107.6.124.27 (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. You provide three "here" links. ¶ The first one says: Celebrities who turned out for the rally included Playboy magazine centerfold Stephanie Adams, who recently came out. / “I just want to speak out and inspire others to be happy and be proud of who they are,” said Adams. It's certainly unusual for one particular celeb to be singled out in an article, but there's no mention that she actually said anything or did anything other than turning up. ¶ The second one says: A group of Jersey City police officers showed their support for the gay and lesbian community by taking turns being photographed with Stephanie Adams, the first Playboy centerfold to come out as a lesbian. She turned up, and was photographed. ¶ The third is a direct quotation of what the website said about itself. Incidentally, we now can't see sapphica.com for ourselves, as web.archive.org now seems to retrospectively apply a site's current robots.txt to its earlier scans, and its robots.txt (as I view it, last modified Sat 14 Apr 2012 01:47:21 JST) currently reads "User-agent: * [newline] Disallow: /". ¶ Is there any independent source for the claim that she "gave speeches for Gay Pride several times" (or similar), or for the claim that sapphica.com was a "lesbian community" (or similar) of even minor note? I can't find it mentioned in Google news, and more surprisingly I don't notice anything about the website in Google's list of blog hits for "sapphica.com" (hits that are instead either about Adams or mere porn). -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Adams gave a speech for Gay Pride 2004 in NYC via Heritage of Pride. It was announced in the HOP Pride Guide. She was also announced for giving a speech on August 28 that same year in Jersey City for JCLGO, their version of Heritage of Pride. I read about her giving a speech in Staten Island as well. The links can be found if you look for them in archives such as these: http://web.archive.org/web/20040604170426/http://www.hopinc.org/events/rally.cfm http://web.archive.org/web/20040620075817/http://www.hopinc.org/events/bioDetails.cfm?bioNo=51 or her media page which lists a lot of the LGBT events she was a part of: http://www.goddessy.com/PressInformation/MediaCoverage.htm But no one really questions her LGBT activism here but one person. 98.14.172.209 (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. You provide three links. Two I think count for little, but this one shows that an organizer regarded her participation as noteworthy. -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Fairleigh Dickinson University Alumni

Adams attended college at Fairleigh Dickinson University and graduated before posing for Playboy in 1992, with dual degrees in business management and marketing. It was mentioned in her Playboy pictorial as well as some of the links already sourced in this article. So why was it abruptly removed by editors recently? Is it merely an attempt to keep her name off the Fairleigh Dickinson page that lists alumni? Regardless, that is not an accurate or neutral edit. By the way, sources about someone graduating college 20 years ago when the internet was not so popular is understandably scarce, but still available, nonetheless. It is indeed a fact and should not be a debate or cause for an edit war. ~Buk. T. 107.6.124.27 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC) -- This ip is posting via a now blocked proxy server. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The article currently says She earned a bachelor's degree at Fairleigh Dickinson University, and she's in Category:Fairleigh Dickinson University alumni. The latter derives from the former, for which three sources are adduced:

• this article, which doesn't seem to mention this
• Playboy, unfortunately not online. Of course there's no requirement that sources should be available online, but it does here mean that I can't see it. That aside, is Playboy reliable for this kind of thing? So far as I'd thought about it, I'd always assumed that its potted bios of topless/nude models were more or less fictional.
• This at TV.com, which is written by "more_ncis_now" and to which you and I are invited to "BECOME A CONTRIBUTOR". In other words, it's not a reliable source. (For all we know, it could have been written from material found in earlier versions of the WP article.):-- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If Playboy wasn't a reliable enough source, playmates and their stats, etc. would not be listed here. Her being a graduate from Fairleigh Dickinson University was featured in her Playboy pictorial. Just look up a copy, they have them online for sale for almost nothing. The school and details of her educational background were mentioned aka published, so it's highly accurate here. 98.14.172.209 (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hoary about the "potted" bios. They are about as true to the subjects as are the heavily air brushed pictures. This bio in question claims Ms. Adams is a direct descendant of two US Presidents, an extraordinary claim that I highly doubt Playboy bothered to fact check. That's not to say that Playboy does not exhibit editorial control and fact checkcing with respects to other aspects of their publications, because apparently they do retain them. However the question at hand is FDU. Do we have a RS reporting the fact? No we don't. Is it an extraordinary claim? Hardly. However here at Wikipedia we rely on a RS to verify information that goes into an article. A google search also returns the subjects linkedin page with this information. WP:EL doesn't forbid using linkedin and other social media as references, but they should be avoided where possible. With the large amount of specious claims previously made in this article, I think social media should be avoided for now. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If Playboy wasn't a reliable enough source, playmates and their stats, etc. would not be listed here. This seems to boil down to: "People believe it; therefore it's believable." By analogy, this seems reasonable: "People eat XYZ; therefore it's edible." But of course "believable" has at least two meanings; and it's the meaning "meriting belief" that I had in mind. ¶ Well, WP normally takes people's word for their own university graduation, so I suggest the article cites LinkedIn (and perhaps Playboy too). -- Hoary (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No one here is in a position to confirm, deny, or question what is written in an article. As long as a mentioning on Wikipedia is sourced and not controversial, it can be added. Adams attending college is, in fact, sourced and is not controversial. Therefore it was added by an expert editor in the past article, was added by an expert editor again, and there is no valid reason to remove it. Yoya7 (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, an editor's job is to confirm, deny and question what is written in an article -- by using the sources. "Controversy" has zippo to do with inclusion/exclusion in an article, that is why we use RS and NOR. Legitimate questions about Playboy bios being a RS have been raised, on its own it is not a RS. I think Hoary's suggestion per LinkedIn is reasonable, as the claim is not extraordinary. Fortunatly the community can decide on a case by case basis when to use WP:EL. ¶ On a theoretical note, do we take into account the accuracy of other cliams on an EL? Just using this article as an exmaple, what if Ms. Adams LinkedIn claimed she had graduated from a prestigous instituion like Oxford? Would we question LinkedIn then? What if she claimed to be the Emperess of France? Would that cast doubt to using any of the EL? Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, new editor! What do you have in mind when you say "expert editor"? -- Hoary (old editor) 22:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

But you aren't an "ugly editor". Your prose and the command of the English language is worthy of Deadwood_(TV_series). I have no idea nor care if you are an editor near NYC. Note: Technically you shouldn't add "Prose worthy of Deadwood" to your list of honors until you use "cocksucker" as a term of endearment. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Deadwood"? (And we'd better refrain from making even the most innocent reference to fellatio anywhere frequented by the humorless -- which includes just about every talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Busted by disambiguation. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. As long as her being a FDU graduate is sourced by her Playboy issue, her biography, an independent article sourced such as The Observer, Linkedin, etc., and it is undeniably not a controversial or unbelievable comment, it is an obvious fact that should stay in the Wikipedia article. And from what I see in this page, you are probably better off not getting involved anyway. Bowwowbow (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. CovenRockCA (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, brand new editor CovenRockCA! -- Hoary (old editor) 22:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, new editor Bowwowbow! -- Hoary (old editor) 22:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep the college fact and add the case she won over guardianship. That was sourced on NJ.com. Yoya7 (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Per her diploma, she graduated in 1992. It seems that this fact should be included in her biography? Glassoftamarindo (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC) user is a blocked sockpuppet

Contentious Material

Removed. The sentence was elaborated upon for clarification but during an edit war, someone removed it. Clearly Adams' statement in the report sourced conflicted with the course, therefore showing that she was not teaching such a course, and overall, it is unimportant trivia that does not relate to her lengthy career as a model. Efradestot (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The source reports this, as I believe do other sources. Can you provide clarification about Adams "statement in the report" that you mentioned? Im not sure what you are referring too. As for your last point, please see WP:GNG. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.. Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's not immediately clear what this is about, the key word within it is course. "Efradestot" (now blocked as a puppet) is referring to the small amount of material deleted in this edit. The phrase contentious material appears in "WP:BLP", which says, inter alia (and after some markup stripping):

• This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.
• All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
• . . . contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.
• Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

As I understand the page, the contention referred to is that over the verifiability (and thereby veracity) of what's said. Arguably, a particular element of the article may not contribute to the general thrust(s) of the rest of the article, or may not reflect well on the subject. What's arguable can of course be argued against, but as I understand "WP:BLP", such arguments don't make material "contentious" as discussed there.

Should the material stay, or shouldn't it? While it doesn't paint the event or its participants in a favorable light, it's not scurrilous and it doesn't vilify SA -- whom it does actually describe, unlike much (all?) of the other material, which merely says she's tall, black and good-looking. Further, this is about an event in which SA did more than appear and be photographed. So I'd say that this edit should be reverted, though I'm open to persuasion to the contrary. -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• This language, "In 2004, Adams taught a Learning Annex course called "How to Marry Rich", with the source, doesn't seem like a big deal to me. What is a big deal is that some people care way too much about this article. The article should be static by this point unless there are new developments. Why can't we just come to a atatic version of the content and be done with this?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As Hoary noted, from the readily available references this one actually mentions the subject in more than periphery detail. The source is not contentious, nor is the content of the edit. The edit should be restored. Other than that I can't see anything else that ever needs to be done to this article unless and until new reliable sources are presented. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the sentence, since it have been so controversial since several years ago, and unnecessary in my opinion. The source used states that only 75 women have attended the course, and this can't be a significant number at all. I have tried googling the name of the course + Adams name, and found less than 10 results if excepting Wikipedia and its mirror websites. Courses is a very routine thing, and can be taught doezens of time a year. Furthermore, it seems that Adams herself have taught several other courses already, but non of them sounds really widely-known --aad_Dira (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC).

I think you're right, as far as you go. However, most courses aim to improve their students' understanding of or ability in some area that could imaginably be covered in an accredited school (whether academic or vocational). By contrast, "How to marry rich" sounds more like the title for a TV series. And it did get a write-up. (Have her books received as much attention?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As for the attention her books has received, this is some of the sources that mention her books. Note that, unlike the course, many of them are written rather than only online sources:

• She Magazine -- Cover Girl Update -- June 2003
• GO NYC -- Cover Model & Article -- July 18 - August 8, 2003
• Playboy Magazine -- "Playmate News" -- August 2003
• New York Blade -- Local Life By Rachel Kramer Bussel - August 2003
• New York Post -- "Page Six" By Richard Johnson -- Thursday, August 28, 2003
• She Magazine -- Powerful Reading For Fall By Diane Wilde -- September 2003
• Playboy Magazine -- "Playmate News" -- Playboy's 50th Anniversary January 2004 Collector's Edition
• GO NYC -- Holiday Shopping Guide -- December 12 - January 31, 2004
• New York Post -- "Page Six" By Richard Johnson -- Saturday, January 17, 2004
• GayCenter.org -- February 2004 -- Volume 19, ISSUE 2
• New York Blade -- April 16, 2004
• GO NYC -- Arts And Entertainment -- May 7 - June 11, 2004
• Next Magazine -- June 2004 Pride Guide
• She Magazine -- December 2004
• She Magazine -- February 2005 -- Cover To Cover By Diane Wilde
• OutProfessionals.org -- Wednesday, March 29, 2006
• WPIX News -- Saturday, February 11, 2012

--aad_Dira (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC).

That's an impressive list indeed! Is it from some particular database? For Adams-irrelevant purposes, I'm interested to know how one can find such sources. -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you implying something, my canescent friend? I think Job would find it difficult to AGF around here sometimes. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I am implying nothing. I am asking a question. Please let people ask questions without asking for the motivation of these questions. -- Hoary (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If that list came from Highbeam, I've got to sign up for the next free offering. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In 2004, Adams taught a course non-related to her profession. Adams has a rich modelling career of more than 20 years. What she taught in 2004 only to a class of 75 has no relevance when talking about her whole life. So there is absolutely no relevance for the sentence to be present on Wikipedia page. However, the guardianship case is relevant. Wikipedia is required to provide authentic and useful information only. --user: Editorkabaap —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your main grounds for objecting to a mention of the Learning Annex course seem to be that it's irrelevant to her [main] profession/career. Thus far, I understand. (I might argue against it, in that they're all different aspects of appealing to heterosexual males.) But when you say there is absolutely no relevance for the sentence to be present I don't know what you mean by "relevance". Further, you assert that the guardianship case is relevant, but you don't say how it's relevant to her main profession/career, or otherwise important. As for Wikipedia is required to provide authentic and useful information only, no, there's a requirement for verifiability but there's none for usefulness. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In view of case that some wikipedians here vouch for inclusion of Learning Annex sentence I vouch that some more information that has had adequate media coverage and that belongs to a major part of her life be added to the page. The importance that is being given to a one time stint forces me to vouch for inclusion of all her writings and media coverage that has ever been given to her some of them as mentionings about her book in media include:

She Magazine -- Cover Girl Update -- June 2003 GO NYC -- Cover Model & Article -- July 18 - August 8, 2003 Playboy Magazine -- "Playmate News" -- August 2003 New York Blade -- Local Life By Rachel Kramer Bussel - August 2003 New York Post -- "Page Six" By Richard Johnson -- Thursday, August 28, 2003 She Magazine -- Powerful Reading For Fall By Diane Wilde -- September 2003 BlackGayUK.com -- Top 10 People Honored For 2003 Playboy Magazine -- "Playmate News" -- Playboy's 50th Anniversary January 2004 Collector's Edition GO NYC -- Holiday Shopping Guide -- December 12 - January 31, 2004 New York Post -- "Page Six" By Richard Johnson -- Saturday, January 17, 2004 GayCenter.org -- February 2004 -- Volume 19, ISSUE 2 New York Blade -- April 16, 2004 GO NYC -- Arts And Entertainment -- May 7 - June 11, 2004 GayWired.com -- Lesbian Media Blender (05.04.04) By Kathy Bliss & Madge Mucker Next Magazine -- June 2004 Pride Guide GayLinkNews.com -- July 15, 2004 She Magazine -- December 2004 QueerDay.com -- December 3, 2004 She Magazine -- February 2005 -- Cover To Cover By Diane Wilde OutProfessionals.org -- Wednesday, March 29, 2006 WPIX News -- Saturday, February 11, 2012

The list goes on...

All of these articles are just a few that mention Miss Adams as an author.

There is a long list of media coverage via: http://www.goddessy.com/PressInformation/MediaCoverage.htm

Also regarding the guardianship case: Just as the NJ lawsuit was a major turning in the point of life of Stephanie Adams and one without which her story cannot be completed so was the guardianship case. It received some well known media coverage too and states of a major event in her time lifeline. It seems quite relevant for it being to be included in the page. -- Editorkabaap (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't cite snippets from the press that are collected in a PR page as if these were directly from the original sources. Instead, you have to cite, and see, the original sources. But nevertheless, I looked at www.goddessy.com/PressInformation/MediaCoverage.htm. There's screenful after screenful, and therefore I only skimread it. But what I did read says very little. As one (possibly atypical) example, "GayLinkNews.com -- July 15, 2004" (which you list above) comes with a list of seven books that exist and an additional three on the way. This looks impressive. However, there's not the slightest hint that the writer for the publication has seen any of them. Instead, Gaylinknews seems to be reprinting PR material. Well, no surprise: gaylinknews.com seems to be defunct, but this describes it as a provider of gay news and press releases. It seems that SA made a press release, gaylinknews.com broadcast it, and SA then noted it as "media coverage". -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Protected

Hi all. Just following up on an email here. I've fully-protected the article here for a while. I'll review the situation in a week or so, but I'll probably drop it to semi-protection. As this article has had issues with sockpuppetry, I intend to keep it on my watchlist from now on - Alison ^❤ 18:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears this might be a possible WP:MEAT issue as well. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletions

Two odd deletions:

1. A single sentence about the Learning Annex course removed, with the edit summary Undid revision 503443261 by Fasttimes68 (talk) - no consensus to add. Quite the opposite, in fact.
2. The (new) section "New Jersey guardianship case" removed, with the edit summary irrelevant, discuss on talk

Well well.

1. There is indeed no consensus to add. But what does "quite the opposite" mean? If "consensus to remove", then no, there is no such consensus to remove.
2. What is claimed to be "irrelevant" to what"? If it's claimed that this section is irrelevant to Adams, then nonsense, it's relevant to Adams. (If on the other hand it's claimed that this is trivial, then please say how.)

-- Hoary (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Point 1: I could be wrong, but I believe there was conesnsus to RESTORE the edit removed by the sock. I'm not sure what "quite the opposite" means in this case. Perhaps Alison would like to explain?

Point 2: I should have said there was previous consensus that this was trivial. "irrelevant" was a poor choice of words. Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. The specific addition has zero weight in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS actually applies to the Learning Annex trivia, not the guardianship case, because that one time, once reported event served as an uneventful diary moment.

The importance of her guardianship case holds even more weight than her NYPD lawsuit. Unlike a single police incident, it was a significant event about a significant person in her life and even though it didn't involve a million dollar judgment, there was an important person in her life involved who is also mentioned in her early life --aad_Dira (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC).

If it is significant there should be numerous reliable sources over a prolonged period. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard that individual compact elements of an article each require numerous reliable sources over a prolonged period. It seems to me that both elements (course and guardianship lawsuit) are (if worded well) adequately sourced. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest you read the policies: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:DUE. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just now reread both. How do they apply here? -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIARY seems the most relevant. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as the NJ lawsuit was a major turning in the point of life of Stephanie Adams and one without which her story cannot be completed so was the guardianship case. It received some well known media coverage too and states of a major event in her time lifeline. It seems quite relevant for it being to be included in the page. As pointed out by "aad_dira" it seems significantly relevant to include about her relationship with a family member which had been important to her in her past life too. Editorkabaap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you are unwilling to read the policies I linked to: If it is "a major event in her time lifeline", get a source that says that. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The page itself as existing now in particular obviously directs to a source in references. I've failed to understand how WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTDIARY apply here. "For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary" Exactly how much trivia is there on page that you feel there can't be more. All of you probably think that aoart from NYPD lawsuit the biography should not even exist. Is it overdetailed? One could say that and it can be disputed the size of discussed section but it finds a place there. --Editorkabaap (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think either of these are particularly contentious, and the guardianship case might be vaguely notable in regards to her life. A single sentence about each shouldn't be a big deal, though inclusion of the Learning Annex certainly opens the door to criticism of the class from reliable sources. Finally, we don't need a source saying something is "a major event in her time lifeline" or any such nonsense, because sources almost never say anything like that. There probably aren't sources for most of our BLPs that say "x event is a major moment of their life". These sorts of things don't need that kind of qualification. A single sentence is more than enough with a source, and adding it shouldn't be that much of an issue. I understand that there is quite a bit of ire against Adams online, but that also shouldn't be a factor when editing this article. AniMate 08:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly due. It's sourced to a single source and just notes that Stephanie adams is the legal guardian of here aunt, but there was a delay. Looks like newspaper reporting on a slow day. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree by Animate. I think she has presented the matter quite convincingly. I stand by my opinion and would further like to add that the article should include lawsuits & LGBT activism. Also, it would be more informative and right enough to include a list of publications written by Adams as an author. --Editorkabaap (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note that aad_Dira has disclosed: [6] they are a paid advocacy editor and will no longer be editing this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Graduation Year: 1992

Hey. Found a copy of Adams' diploma from University on her website. She graduated in 1992. Yes, it's a primary source, but it seems that information should be included in the page. What does everyone think? Glassoftamarindo (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC) user is a blocked sockpuppet

I'm sure she probably did graduate in 1992. If any of the RS reference this, I would have no issue with inclusion since the RS cared enough to report this tidbit. However i would prefer not to use this particular PS unless corroborated elsewhere.Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Why in the world would you not want to add this? It's not a particularly exceptional claim and clearly satisfies WP:ABOUTSELF? AniMate 21:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The diploma is a very good proof, and since it is not that big controversial fact, I see no problem in adding it to the article --aad_Dira (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC).

What in world do you have against Stephanie Adams and any relevant data about her that could be put on her Wikipedia page. The source is a very legitimate one and since in absence of any disputes over the concerned year of graduation it only seems logical to be it being true. [User: Editorkabaap | Editorkabaap ]] (talk

@AniMate You are correct. The article does rely on the PS in several places already, and does not unbalance as the policy states it should not. One more place won't hurt it. I will restore this edit when the article unlocks if someone else doesn't beat me to it first. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Fastimes68 to agreeing with it. It would be appreciated if you accept a more neutral point of view for further edits as well or leave it to neutral editors and administrators. [User:Editorkabaap|Editorkabaap]] (talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not required and I would suggest ignoring requests from blocked sockpuppets. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe we agree that we disagree. Let an administrator decide.--Editorkabaap (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

LGBT activism section

I just happened by the article and notice some of it has the stilted effect of information that is heavily challenged, and that it could use a bit of reorganization. The LGBT section in particular seems random. I gather that Ms. Adams has made conflicting statements about her sexuality. Could I get a discussion going on what the section should say and how it should be said in a neutral tone? Pkeets (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You'd be welcome to (re)start such a discussion. I'd agree that the article is very strange now: though a section is titled "LGBT activism", there's no hint within it of activism. One problem is that not much evidence has ever been adduced for activism: she seems to have been photographed at various events, and she might even have said something at one or two of these, but that's about it. -- Hoary (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Another question: Is there some disagreement about the NJ guardianship case being noteworthy enough to mention here? She's notable enough that this and the police lawsuit both made the papers, so they're fair game to be mentioned in the article. Pkeets (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there's been disagreement. I think that most people would agree to a sentence about this case. -- Hoary (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Any objections to my editing these two areas and smoothing out some of the language? Since there seems to have been quite a bit of discussion, I don't want to step on any toes. I'm not sure I understand what's generated all the archives - now blanked? I can't see where Ms. Adams is such a controversial figure. Pkeets (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you post proposed changes here first. Quite a few admins are watching this article and will lock it at the slightest hint of EW.

You are one of several seasoned editors to have shown a recent interest in this article. This is a welcome change from the flood of new wikipedians who somehow have managed to find their way here. Some have recently mentioned notability of certain aspects of the subject, eg police cases, lawsuits, learning annex course, etc. I'm starting to question the WP:GNG of the subject once again. Playmates by definition are not notable in of themselves. Are the "published" works? I've never seen any sources that mention them outside of the fact the books exist. The NYPD lawsuit? Tabloid. The guardian lawsuit? Not even close to contributing to notability. As far as I can see the only possible hook that establishes notability is that the subject is purportedly the first Playboy playmate to “come out”. And that seems to be a unifying facet in many of the RS that report on the subject. Titillating, but is it noteworthy? I’m trying to think of a good reason this article doesn’t get a once over at AfD again. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have something against black lesbians? These things made the papers and appeared in books and magazines, which are standard sources indicating notability. She has a pretty good listing of publications at Amazon.com and Google Books, including a novel, which would normally qualify her as a successful writer. I'll go ahead and make some changes to the article. Pkeets (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there some issue about the guardianship that I don't know about? It was reported in two of the existing references, which provide legitimate secondary sources. I've left out the names of the judges, which means the paragraph isn't directly embarrassing anyone. Pkeets (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see why it's noteworthy enough to mention here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand the guidelines, notability of the subject has to be established before an article is retained in the Wikipedia system, but information within the article doesn't have to pass this kind of test. The goal is to provide information about her life and career in a neutral tone. Ms. Adams is a celebrity, so her activities are often noted by secondary sources, which provide the information we have to work with in building an article. I'm also looking at sources that say she spoke at gay events and appeared at rallies. Although there doesn't seem to be a reference that describes her as an activist, there should be something that mentions this activity. Would there be any objection to adding a general uncited comment that "She also spoke at gay events and rallies"? Pkeets (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an entire discussion above on the guardianship: It's sourced to a single source and just notes that Stephanie adams is the legal guardian of here aunt, but there was a delay. Looks like newspaper reporting on a slow day. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also looking at sources that say she spoke at gay events and appeared at rallies. [...] Would there be any objection to adding a general uncited comment that "She also spoke at gay events and rallies"? Yes. Instead, write "She also spoke at gay events and rallies", citing your sources for this (especially since you're now looking at these). -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I also see that Adams continued her association with Playboy, Appearing in videos and documentaries. Although I don't see these listed in acceptable secondary sources, they clearly exist. Any suggestions on how to present these in the article? Pkeets (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

She has a pretty good listing of publications at Amazon.com and Google Books, including a novel, which would normally qualify her as a successful writer. Whether a listing is pretty good isn't merely a matter of its length. Who published these publications (and how), and what was their reception? (See various stuff here [if you can stomach all the excitement], and the material toward the end of this [the beginning has more heat than light].) -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Just skimming this, it looks like you may have some sort of personal vendetta going on? Pkeets (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Who is this "you"? Me? If so, no, I have no personal vendetta, but I do have an impersonal vendetta against publicists and people with personal vendettas. (If somebody else, please specify; or of course retract.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm just dropping in on the discussion and i don't know the history. I was just going by the recent comments. All authors take steps to publish their own works, so they are the primary cause of publication. If you'll review the list now in the article, you'll see that Adams has gone through various publishers, but recently (following market trends) has begin publishing and marketing her own brand. Why are you casting aspersions on this? Pkeets (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I gather there have now been more than three reversions of the guardianship information with only opinions given as a reason? That's acting in bad faith according to Wikipedia guidelines. I already said above that the case is mentioned in two of the listed references, regardless that it is referenced to only one in the Wikipedia article. A quick Google locates other possible citations of reasonable quality. Sentences like the one about her diploma which cite four or five different sources don't really do anything to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles. I would recommend removing some of the citation lineup on that sentence and also retaining the guardianship information which is properly cited and relevant to the section where it was placed. "Looks like news reporting on a slow day" is not a proper argument. Please provide clear and reasonable reasons as to why you think it needs several citations for inclusion. Meanwhile, I'll assemble a few. Pkeets (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Since there's a request for it, I did the research on her publication. I gather you want to add this info to the article? Since I've gone to all this trouble, I'll go ahead and do that. She's clearly establishing a brand, but don't confuse that with the publishing houses. That's nothing unusual for celebrities, like having their own clothing line. It means she's good at marketing. I notice she did go to publishing her own Goddessy books in about 2007. I see that some of these are available in ebook editions as well as print, but I'll let someone else do that research if there's enough interest in it. Pkeets (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, Fasttimes68, but you should join the discussion about changes to the article before you make reversions. I went to quite a bit of research to find the publishers as requested by Hoary. Continued reversions without discussion is grounds for administrative action. Pkeets (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

And the current consensus (read thrrough the archive) is that the publications should not be included. Of course consensus can change. Perhaps as fast as you were able to compile that list maybe? Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly quick at research. Thank you for noticing. Please point me to the consensus on not including publications. I don't see it here and much of the archives seem to be blanked. Inclusion of an authors works is standard in Wikipedia and not considered promotional material. For example, see (at random) Manly Palmer Hall, or any other particular author. Some have separate pages for large lists of publications. Pkeets (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

See that little box at the top that says "Archive 1"? I suggest you start there and work your way through to Archive 5. That should bring you up to speed. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The archives have been blanked for some reason. Should there be some kind of investigation as to why they're missing? Pkeets (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking. I don't know how to fix it, but look at the history of the archive in question and then find the latest version before it was courtesy blanked (see note by the admin who blanked). You could also ask the blanking admin to fix it. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got it backwards; you need to discuss and get consensus before you make reversions, see WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. If someone reverts you, do not revert your changes back in. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you please join the discussion then? I took Fasttimes68 post on the source of her publications to be a request for information on the publishers, but when I supplied it in the article, he reverted the change. Which editors do I need to ask to obtain consensus? Pkeets (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

If there's to be a consensus, then there needs to be a discussion. Please provide arguments and not opinions regarding the points now in contention. 1) Hoary suggested that the publications shouldn't be listed as they were self-published. However, the listing of publishers proves this is not the fact. Please provide other arguments. 2) IRWolfie suggested that the guardianship statement is unimportant because it was only cited once. Will additional citations make this look important enough for inclusion? Pkeets (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• these publications are baloney. wikipedia is not linked-in. why don't we delete this whole article? the bickering and fighting is ridiculous, and the last AfD ended in a redirect.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, again, but why does a Wikipedia editor make judgments that publications are "baloney?" Do you also think the sale of baseball cards is "baloney"? The books and calendars sell to a particular group of people. Your attitude is showing, which is inappropriate for the neutral tone of an informational encyclopedia. Pkeets (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Admin note: You guys know the drill (and if you're new, or you don't, please see WP:EW and WP:BLP. Now you know the drill!). Reverting is not a substitute for discussion, and if discussion is ongoing, it is inappropriate to continue reverting. If discussion here isn't adequate, try WP:BLPN or WP:DRN. I've seen too many reverts today as it is. If I see any more reverting going on, it's back to full-protection, most likely for longer this time since these disputes seem to arise so regularly. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's not delete the article. She passes WP:BASIC and even better she's hot and you know it.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I had a look through the archives again. They're all blanked except for the last one, which provides very little of coherent discussion. Perhaps those with objections for the addition of content to the article might review it now? You must know that Wikipedia policy encourages the expansion of articles, which is featured through DYK. There is good material which could be added to this one. Pkeets (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've found the discussion about the books in the old archive revisions, but I can't see any consensus. There shouldn't be a problem with the legitimacy of these books, because they have ISBN numbers. Goddessy is a brand name, for anyone who is confused by the titles, and says nothing about the publisher. When I was checking, I found eBook versions as well as print versions, which is standard for publishing. If I recall the statistics correctly, eBooks are currently outselling print copies - Internet residents should be aware of such things. Additionally, there is no requirement that the books be notable in order to be listed, as there is no Wikipedia requirement for the notability of information within an article. I agree that listing annual astrology readings might be a bit much, but would there be support for listing the more substantial of the books? Pkeets (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding comments on AfD, denying and/or blocking information on how Adams has become a successful businesswoman, celebrity and spokesperson will lead to this kind of suggestion as it obscures the reasons for her notability. For this reason, the blocking of information is discouraged by Wikipedia policy. See WP:DE. Pkeets (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

DE does not say anything about this. You are required to get consensus for changes, that is all. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's what DE says: "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia." I have stated above that I think this article should be improved and extended and at least one editor agreed with me. Please justify why you think an erroneous source, which you have identified as such, should be left in the article.Pkeets (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

.In my humble opinion, the article on Stephanie Adams would be more complete by including information on the books she has written, such as the one written about her guardian, Pearlene Smith. I also previously added a section on the guardianship case that Stephanie Adams took in New Jersey to gain legal custody of Pearlene Smith. As this involved fighting for custody of the person who had once been her own guardian, I believe it equals a notable chapter in Stephanie Adams’s life. Finally, the person has also been involved in activism on LGBT issues, speaking at parades which, in my consideration makes it worthy of inclusion in the article. Her being considered a 'leading light' of the LGBT movement can be debated back and forth, but it would seem reasonable to suggest that she has been involved. Thank you for your consideration.Fbell74 (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Fbell. There's also mention above of finding sources for the LGBT activism. I'll look for some later today. For everyone else, please be ready to discuss and provide your input for this section to reach a consensus on revising it. Pkeets (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

An opinion that would indeed appear to be humble, given that it's priced at $10. I quote "Work in Progress | Custom Project Aug 3 2012 20:51:15" within this page (WebCite backup): We would like to offer you more than the $20 you were due. We only ask that you make one or two comments, if needed, in the talkpage the next coming days. It might not be necessary, but if you can add in the talk page that you feel your edit and addition about the NJ guardianship should remain, that would suffice. Concensus thus far is that it be added, as long as you include that you agree. For the additonal $10, that is all we need. -- Hoary (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

In reference to my comment, I can only reiterate what I said above, which is that the sources I found supported my comments regarding including the New Jersey guardianship case, the lawsuit against NYPD and her involvement with LGBT issues. The opinions I expressed were my own. If the source material had not be present I would not have made the comments.Fbell74 (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you said in your reversion, Wolfie. Her college graduation isn't mentioned in that particular source. Why do you want to put the reference back in? Please read the page on disruptive editing that I posted above at WP:DE, and let me know how to reach consensus on this point. Pkeets (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of reaching consensus, could I ask all concerned editors to review the four citations on the college graduation statement within the article. One citation should be enough to reference the statement. Other references there seem to have no relation to the statement and do not support it. I propose to remove the extra references which have no mention of Adams' college attendance within them from the statement in her article that she graduated from Fairleigh Dickinson University in 1992. Please provide a discussion toward reaching a consensus. If there is no discussion by Sunday night, then I will expect a consensus has been reached that I may remove the extra references. Thank you. Pkeets (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Above: Hoary suggested that the publications shouldn't be listed as they were self-published. However, the listing of publishers proves this is not the fact. (1) No I did not suggest this. Please do not put words into my mouth. The comment to which I was replying: She has a pretty good listing of publications at Amazon.com and Google Books, including a novel, which would normally qualify her as a successful writer. My reply to this: Whether a listing is pretty good isn't merely a matter of its length. Who published these publications (and how), and what was their reception? Or in short: I was questioning a claim that the list of publications implied success. (2) The list of publishers is not impressive. Please see the end of this.
2. Above: why does a Wikipedia editor make judgments that publications are "baloney?" I didn't say this and can't speak for the person who did. However, a number of the books do purport to give astrological advice. I quote "Horoscope": no studies have shown any scientific support for the accuracy of horoscopes, and the methods used to make interpretations are generally considered pseudo-scientific. "Baloney" is an indelicate way to summarize this, but I think an accurate one. (No, no, of course it shouldn't appear in the article.)
3. Above: There shouldn't be a problem with the legitimacy of these books, because they have ISBN numbers. Their legitimacy is unrelated to their possession of ISBNs. An ISBN merely makes a book easier to identify (see this explanation for example). For that matter, plenty of recent worthwhile books lack ISBNs.

-- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion that guardianship case & other lawsuits & LGBT activism should be included in the article. Also, it would be more informative and right enough to include a list of publications written by Adams as an author. I stand by Hoary above that "There shouldn't be a problem with the legitimacy of these books". --Editorkabaap (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hoary is quoting me above. The books look fine to me, Hoary. Please explain your comment about who published the books, how and their reception. I supplied the information on who published them, if you don't mean Adams herself. There were three different publishers before she started publishing them herself in 2007. These books are or have been available in print editions, as this appears in the description. It's probably a little late to look for book reviews, but I gather these are well enough received by her audience that she keeps writing. Why do you think they're unsuitable for mention in the article when similar books are mentioned in articles all over Wikipedia? Do you feel that books about the "occult" are unsuitable for sale in general? Regardless that horoscopes and astrology are not considered scientific, there are people who enjoy them and like to buy them, like books about flying saucers and alien kidnappings. Again, content of the article, i.e. book titles, doesn't have to be notable, only to reveal information on the subject. She writes metaphysical non-fiction books, fiction books, articles and horoscopes. If I just put that into the article, others will question why we haven't mentioned the titles to any books when it seems that writing is her most visible occupation these days. It shouldn't be a big deal. Pkeets (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardig your link, I couldn't sort out the Library of Congress search, but I did check the Copyright office and found this Stephanie Adams without any problems. Pkeets (talk)

1. Why do you think they're unsuitable for mention in the article when similar books are mentioned in articles all over Wikipedia? / I don't think mention is unsuitable (although a search through the quasi-archive [see below] will show that I did think so in the past).
2. Do you feel that books about the "occult" are unsuitable for sale in general? / Certainly not. There are excellent sociological and other books about belief the occult; I've read a small number myself. As for the value of books that are not really about the occult but instead assume or assert that the relative positions of stars (as understood or misunderstood by astrologers) affect one's fate, I have my own opinion on their value, but this opinion is irrelevant to whether or not a list of them should be included.
3. She writes metaphysical non-fiction books, fiction books, articles and horoscopes. If I just put that into the article, others will question why we haven't mentioned the titles to any books when it seems that writing is her most visible occupation these days. / I don't know what her occupation is these days; and I'm always puzzled by mentions in contexts such as this of the "metaphysical", as its relation to metaphysics is unclear. Those points aside, I agree with you. [This longish (sorry!) message of mine continues; it includes the green box.]

Below is material from the quasi-archive (see below) about the publication of these books.

According to the list, Adams's most recent book is Happenings. I clicked on the ISBN and Amazon told me that it was published by "Infinity Publishing". Googling for that took me here: we have created a self publishing system which allows authors total creative control, total rights ownership, and a bookstore quality book; a one-stop solution for authors seeking a destination for their work etc etc. Two of Adams's books have similar ISBNs. A commoner ISBN pattern is that exemplified by Sapphica: 2006 Astrological blah blah blah. By a similar route, I learn that this was published by "Dubsar House", another name that was new to me. Unlike Infinity Publishing, Dubsar House doesn't simply offer to publish what you pay them to publish, but their page "How to Publish with Us" seems unusually open to manuscripts: none of the usual publishers' stuff about how they're swamped by submissions, but instead such advice for novices as "Please spell-check the entire document, correcting all spelling, punctuation and the grammatical structure, when appropriate." (And how many times have they been mentioned by the NYT? Look here.)

These books [...] don't seem to have survived the whittling process that produces the kind of books that are reviewed, discussed, or bought. This is publishing of a very low order. -- Hoary 03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the publisher of each book, so it can be more easily seen what is going on here. There are four publishers:

1. PublishAmerica, about which we have a good article
2. Dubsar House Publishing and
3. New Age World Publishing which are extremely similar, right down to using text and graphics from each other on their web pages (Dubsar House page source code refers to nawpublishing.com - New Age pages use the words "Dubsar House" in their graphics); I would bet they are run by the same company
4. Infinity Publishing which at least uses different web pages.

From reading their sites, all four seem to meet most definitions of vanity presses. I could not see anything one way or another about their being e-books. However, all that evaluation is original research on my part; I have not seen any published source say anything one way or another about the quality of Ms. Adams's books. As I wrote before, I still think they're worth about one line each - no more, and no less. This is nothing special about Ms. Adams -- if another person we have an article about for reasons other than being an author publishes a widely available vanity press book, I also think that would be worth briefly mentioning in their article. Since Jimbo's semi-protection has blocked both of our anonymous contributors from editing without first logging in, perhaps we will have a bit of peaceful discussion about this, rather than an edit war. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In this edit, 74.68.113.251 changes

a self-published spirituality author

to

a spirituality author

with the edit summary:

Removed false and kind of condescending info. Adams' books were actually published by four separate companies (Dubsar House, New Age World, Publish America. etc.) before Goddessy became a publishing company.

An old version of the article tells me that the fourth is Infinity Publishing. Well, let's look at these four:

• Dubsar House: See New Age World.
• New Age World: "Charges fee. Not recommended. A book publisher in California. Other imprints are Dubsar House..." (my emphases)
• PublishAmerica: See this.
• Infinity Publishing: "Not recommended. A vanity publisher located in Pennsylvania and affiliated with Spoken Books Publishing" (my emphasis)

It seems that "four separate companies" is a slight exaggeration, and that each of the four imprints is a way for people to have published books that most publishers wouldn't bother with, or more bluntly a vanity publisher. "Self-published author" seems kinder than "vanity-published author". -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The publishers are Dubsar House, New Age World, PublishAmerica, and Infinity Publishing. Dubsar House describes itself as Purveyors of the Finest in Chivalric Regalia / Gateway to Contemporary Fraternal Orders of Excellence, it seems no longer to publish books. New Age World (Specializing in Books about the Unknown and Mysterious, the Beautiful, and the Enlightening!) is indeed rather mysterious. PublishAmerica says that it doesn't charge; it's a print-on-demand arrangement that has had its problems. Infinity Publishing provides you with the easiest and most comprehensive self-publishing experience. -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

For a simpler summary, see Gwen Gale on the matter in October 2008 (and see also the section immediately below that one within the quasi-archive). -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all this research. However, I don't think this precludes mention of the books in the article. Self-publishing is less of a deal than it might have been in the past. The publishing industry has recently experienced the type of changes that allow E.L. James to publish Fifty Shades of Gray on fan-fiction websites, go on to publish through Amazon in eBook and print-on-demand editions and continue to run away best-seller status with a Universal Pictures film deal. If you're not familiar with it, this book is poorly reviewed as to quality, but has outsold Harry Potter. Even with traditional publishers, authors are now expected to present their marketing plan along with their manuscript. Pkeets (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Fifty Shades of Gray has undistinguished origins. However, it's notable. Poor reviews notwithstanding, we have evidence of its notability beyond its mere existence. Is there anything like such talk about the books by SA? If there is not, this would be no reason to remove mention of them; but I'd question any assertion that they add to the author's noteworthiness. -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality of references in second paragraph

Setting aside the discussion of the quality of Ms. Adams's books for a moment and getting back to the quality of the article: Could I get approval/consensus for these changes? Two out of the four citations on the degree sentence contain no reference to it or to the University. The last couple of sentences of the second paragraph are re-written to improve readability. If I don't get any discussion within a reasonable length of time, I'll assume consensus.

After graduating from Ophelia DeVore School of Charm, then appearing in photo shoots for Seventeen magazine, Venus Swimwear, and commercial advertisements for Clairol,[2] Adams appeared as "Miss November 1992" in Playboy magazine.[1] She also earned a bachelor's degree at Fairleigh Dickinson University in 1992[3][5] while modeling for Wilhelmina Models. She later moved to Elite Model Management after becoming engaged to its CEO, John Casablancas.[6] Adams has appeared on the cover of Village Voice.[7] She made a cameo appearance for the "Top 10" list on the Late Show with David Letterman on November 20, 2003, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Playboy magazine.[8] During the early 1990s, Adams also appeared in several documentaries/videos issued by Playboy.[6] In 1999, Adams founded Goddessy, according to her a portmanteau of "goddess" and "odyssey". She published her first book in 2003, and started her own publishing company in 2007. Following the death of her aunt from breast cancer in 2003, she dedicated more of her time to writing. That same year, she published a book dedicated to her deceased aunt titled He Only Takes The Best, followed by another book written in honor of her elderly Aunt Pearl titled Guardian. Adams has produced about two dozen metaphysical books and astrology calendars marketed under the Goddessy brand.[9][10] She has also published articles, novels and non-fiction books including Empress in 2004, a novel featuring women in ancient Rome.[11]

How can we judge? We can't see the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be easier to judge in the actual article, wouldn't it? This is very close to the version that was reverted. The two references I'm suggesting we remove from the college sentence are Playboy and Live and Uncensored. I can't see any mention of college in these two links. However, I notice the TV.com reference mentions her filmography, so I'll add that in above. Pkeets (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is, can you add the actual sources into your paste of the text above. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Go look at the current article and you can see the references, which are unchanged. I'm proposing the removal of 4 and 5 as described above from the sentence on university. I think this will cause the reference numbers to slip down by two, but that won't actually happen until the revision is inserted into the article.

• 1^ a b c d e f "Stephanie Adams". playboy.com. Retrieved August 21, 2011.
• 2^ a b Stephanie Adams – Biography
• 3^ "Fairleigh Dickinson University graduation certificate". Retrieved Jul 28, 2012.
• 4^ a b Live and Uncensored: It’s Dave | The New York Observer
• 5^ Playboy Magazine – November, 1992 – Vol. 39 No. 11, p. 115
• 6^ TV.com | Stephanie Adams Biography
• 7^ Village Voice – June 22–28, 2005 – Vol. L No. 25
• 8^ Show #2080, Late Show With David Letterman, CBS.com, November 20, 2003.
• 9^ Diane Wilde, "Cover to Cover", She Magazine, September, 2003, p. 16.
• 10^ Voo, Jocelyn (April 2005). "Honing her craft". Curve. Outspoken Enterprises. p. 57.
• 11^ a b Lester, Neal A.; Goggin, Maureen Daly (2007-12-28). Racialized Politics of Desire in Personal Ads. Lexington Books. pp. 151–. ISBN 9780739122082. Retrieved 4 August 2012. Pkeets (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I would especially appreciate discussion on the Playboy reference. I had originally planned to leave it in. Currently it points to the Wikipedia Playboy page, but presumably the actual magazine cited has a reference that mentions the degree. Playboy might be considered a better reference than the two I've left in above. Pkeets (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to provide a link to the actual magazine. It's enough that it is verifiable in practice by getting the particular version of the magazine. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So you'd prefer to leave it in? Pkeets (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have any opinion on it. Just don't make reliability your reason for removing it. There are other factors you will want to consider, such as WP:DUE weight etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, I think stacking four citations up on one statement gives it undue weight. One reference should be sufficient. Pkeets (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Quasi-archive

The archives of this discussion page have been "courtesy blanked", but it's fairly easy to view a quasi-archive by looking at those earlier versions of the discussion page that came immediately before a volume reduction. I may have missed one or two, but I think most are below:

• 30 April 2006
• 3 May 2006
• 26 February 2007
• 22 April 2008
• 27 April 2008
• 14 June 2008
• 2 October 2008
• 1 April 2010
• 7 August 2011
• 22 August 2011
• 25 August 2011

-- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all this work. It will make checking them much easier. Pkeets (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help. There will be overlaps between them, and again, I may have missed something. -- Hoary (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

LGBT activism

In response to the above discussion on LGBT activism, I've researched Adams' appearances and decided that these do indicate a pattern of activism. Therefore, I propose that we reestablish the section on LGBT activism with the following text. Please respond with discussion. If there's no discussion by Tuesday, I'll expect there is consensus to add the section. I'll come up with an additional section to handle what's cut from this paragraph in the current article.

In a February 2003 She magazine cover story, Adams came out as a lesbian, the first Playmate to have done so.[13] In their 2004 "Best of", the Village Voice declared her the "Best lesbian sex symbol", saying it was "hard to turn a page in a queer rag without seeing the willowy model peeking out in a bikini, or nothing at all".[14] Following this announcement, Adams was featured at a number of LGBT activist events, appearing as a speaker, announcer and spokesperson. Selective appearances include the Human Rights Campaign "National Coming Out Day" in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, on October 11, 2003, sponsored by The Women's Alliance of South Florida; Heritage of Pride, NYC Gay Pride 2004 Rally, on 20 June 2004,, the The 36th Annual Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender PRIDE March on 26 June 2005 and on 26 June 2006,; the Jersey City Lesbian & Gay Outreach, 28 August 2004, and Out Professionals on 29 March 2006;. In addition, Adams served as sponsor and made a special appearance for the Publishing Triangle book expo on 12 June 2004. On 31 January 2006, Adams was announced as the featured spokeswoman for PsychoTherapy Clothing's Gay and Lesbian t-shirt line. Company president Keith Knight was quoted as saying, "PsychoTherapy Clothing has chosen Stephanie Adams to represent our brand because of her pioneering spirit and outspoken voice."

There is some issues with the sourcing. This seems to be a picture: [7], we shouldn't have to rely on inferred attendance. The rest of the sources appear to be primary, one is a blog. Are there better sources; i.e secondary coverage such as in newspapers? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The notices are posted by the organizations and not Adams. I'll check and see if I can come up with some news coverage. Note that the picture is labeled with the event title. The announcements on these events are not maintained and you can see I've made liberal use of the Wayback machine. Pkeets (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Here's one for the 2004 rally. http://www.i-newswire.com/stephanie-adams-takes-on-nyc-for/a22551
• Here's one for the 2005 rally. http://chelseanow.com/articles/2005/06/24/gay_city_news_archives/past%20issues/17005725.txt

More later. Pkeets (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Here's one that's secondary for the 2003 Coming Out Day. http://www.miaminewtimes.com/content/printVersion/246958/
• Here's one for 2006, another photo, but this one is secondary and has a caption. http://www.exposay.com/stephanie-adams-37th-annual-gay-pride-parade/p/3363/1/?f=Stephanie+Adams/ and another one: http://www.prphotos.com/store/category.cgi?item=JTM-018251&type=store&ps=1&x-start=23
• Here's 2004 Jersey City: http://www.gaypasg.org/gaypasg/PressClippings/2004/August%202004/Gay%20Pride%20festival%20in%20Jersey%20City%20draws%20politicians.htm
• Here's one for Out Professionals: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/04/prweb374203.htm

You present a lot of links. I didn't look at all but I did look at the most recently added bunch:

• Here's one for the 2004 rally: PR from Adams's company
• Here's one for the 2005 rally: Its entire relevant content: "Stephanie Adams, the first out lesbian Playboy centerfold"
• Here's one that's secondary for the 2003 Coming Out Day Yes, mentions that she'll be there, but says nothing about what she'll do.
• Here's one for 2006, another photo, but this one is secondary and has a caption: Yes, a single photo, of course saying nothing about her activism
• and another one: Ditto
• Here's 2004 Jersey City: One sentence about being photographed with SA; no hint of activism/activity by her
• Here's one for Out Professionals: PR from Adams's company

Very possibly she's done something more significant than turning up and being photographed; if so, can you point to a source for this? On the other hand, perhaps "activism" -- which I associate with speaking, writing, publishing, organizing, etc (and indeed being "kettled", arrested and jailed) -- means so little these days that just appearing at a rally and being photographed there constitutes "activism"; if so, then I suppose that she's an activist.

Of course, you and I may legitimately disagree on meanings and interpretations. One solution would be to add a moderate amount of this material under the rubric of not "LGBT activism" but "Appearances at LGBT events". However, I don't understand why you, an experienced editor, are listing mere PR stuff as evidence for anything. -- Hoary (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing really wrong with using the primary sources for content. See WP:BASIC which says: "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." Coming out and appearing at events should be considered activism for an unpopular stance, but I agree that she's not been a radical. If you'll read the primary sources, they say she is appearing as a speaker and parade announcer which was a substantial contribution. Check the description of her activities in this reference, for example. Although it's PR, it summarizes what she thinks she's doing, which is speaking and writing for a gay audience. As I said above, my first impression was that the evidence for activism was weak, but after reading through the references, I've decided this would qualify as a section. We might collect the "personal life" info into a different one. Pkeets (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

LGBT events -- this is NYC in the 21st century, not Tennessee or Tehran. LGBT rallies are pretty mainstream. Appearance may be more commendable than non-appearance, but it's not activism. Speaking and writing to a gay audience isn't activism. And dependence on her own PR output is unencyclopedic and smacks of desperation. ¶ You say I've decided this would qualify as a section. It would not resemble any I've seen in other articles. (Again, this is NYC in the two-thousands, not the 1930s.) But if you must, then title it "Lesbian self-identification" or whatever. -- Hoary (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no desperation here. You said above that you thought speaking and writing were signs of activism, so only I pointed out this is what she (or her organization) thinks she's doing. I'm not relying on her PR. I've presented primary sources above to verify that she was invited to LGBT events as a speaker, sponsor and parade announcer. I'm suggesting we put back "LGBT activism" and not "Lesbian self-identification" because that's what was already there. There no reason to make revisions of other editors' work unless it's in error. I've added a secondary source to the Jersey City photo above, if you'll notice. I wasn't pleased with just the photo, either. Pkeets (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's an example of an article that says "Lesbian activism" with similar content. Maybe that would work as a section title. Comments? See Susan G. Cole. Pkeets (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we reading different wikipedias? Here's what my Wikipedia says (with poor sourcing) about Cole (of whom I hadn't previously heard):

Cole is one of the co-founders of the Lesbian Organization of Toronto (LOOT),[footnote] the first political organization of gay women in Toronto, and through the 1980s was an out lesbian prepared to speak public. She now programs the Proud Voices literary stages at Toronto’s Pride Week celebrations.

So she's a cofounder of an organization, she spoke publicly in the 1980s (not just the 2000s), and now she "programs" the something-something somewhere. She did things; she does things -- this is hugely more like what I consider "activism" than are mere appearances and being photographed. -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So Cole came out earlier. I posted the link in response to you comment that you'd never seen a section like this in Wikipedia. Also note the style of the other article. There is only one citation in the paragraph on LOOT, and we are expected to take the rest of her activity on faith. Adams has also done things. She has appeared as a speaker, sponsor and parade announcer in events which I have referenced individually above, not just expected people to take on faith. There should be no discussion on whether these sources are sufficient to show that Adams did appear and acted in a significant role. According to Wikipedia standards, the above paragraph would be exemplary content. There is a precedent for calling the section "LGBT activism" or "Lesbian activism." Belittling the motivations of the subject is not a sufficient argument against adding it. Pkeets (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with adding this material. It's too based on PR stuff and implicit assumptions. To label someone as an "activist" we need direct evidence of his activism. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Covers and featured in

Here's something else we might consider adding to the article. Any comments?

"Stephanie was on the cover of last year’s Village Voice gay pride edition and has been featured in and on the cover of various publications including Bazaar, Cosmopolitan, ELLE, She Magazine, Curve, GO NYC, Next, The Weekly News, DIVA, The Advocate, New York Observer, Time Out New York, The Daily News, The New York Post, New York Newsday and many more.""Playboy Playmate to Undergo Psycho Therapy". 31 January 2006accessdate=5 August 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Pkeets (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing? Okay, this is a secondary source for the magazines and publications where she has appeared. I propose to add this to the second paragraph. Please make any comments by Thursday or I'll expect this is accepted by consensus. Pkeets (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a mere PR release from some clothing company, which of course is less interested in informing people than in exciting them. Please stop citing PR fluff. -- Hoary (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Adams has appeared on the cover of Village Voice,[7] and has been featured within and on the cover of publications including Bazaar, Cosmopolitan, ELLE, She Magazine, Curve, GO NYC, Next, The Weekly News, DIVA, The Advocate, New York Observer, Time Out New York, The Daily News, The New York Post, New York Newsday and others. She made a cameo appearance for the "Top 10" list on the Late Show with David Letterman on November 20, 2003, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Playboy magazine.[8]

You here present one source, and it's mere PR fluff. Additionally, for other WP biographies I'm familiar with, interviews by Letterman are rarely mentioned (unless perhaps something extraordinary happens within them) -- hardly surprising, in view of the number he's had over the years. I've not seen a "cameo appearance" mentioned in any other bio. Its mention here looks desperate. -- Hoary (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Check Al Gore. It says he read the Top 10 list. This is a model and celebrity. A lot of what's out there will be PR fluff. However, that doesn't change what she's done. Pkeets (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The article on Gore mentions that he read the top 10 list as part of a little discussion about popular perceptions of Gore. It's not presented as any kind of achievement or mark of noteworthiness. Yes, SA is (or anyway was) a model and celeb. I am unconcerned about the existence of PR fluff about her. I am concerned about its use in an article here. Please do not cite it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. It's already in the article. Pkeets (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

AfD procedural close

I have "procedurally closed" the pending AfD discussion on this article without a result. There is evidence of major problems with user conduct surrounding this AfD and this article, to the point that the integrity of the AfD discussion has been irreparably compromised. There are also allegations of significant off-wiki misconduct by one or more editors who have participated in this discussion, which is being looked into. Anyone with evidence concerning off-wiki misconduct by editors on this article or AfD should please forward it to the Arbitration Committee via e-mail. If editors without any connection, either positive or negative, with the article subject wish to pursue deletion of this article, they can do so later on after the current concerns are resolved.

As a more general comment, it might be best if quite a number of people stepped away from seeking to edit or discussing this article for a few days, until all aspects of the current situation can be addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to hold up for a while. Thanks for your concerns. Pkeets (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Please disambiguate: cover story → Article (publishing), with appropriate piping. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Pending incoming link from List of Playboy Playmates of 1992

This notice is being provided in case the proposed edit is in any way, shape, or form impacted by the Arbitration Committee supervision of the Stephanie Adams article, and/or if the proposed change to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992 is generally considered a bad idea by the editors of Stephanie Adams even in the absence of anything to do with the Arbitration Committee.

Barring any objections in the next week, expect List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#November to be modified so that it starts off with

{{main|Stephanie Adams}}

If anyone has any objections, please discuss it at Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#Stephanie Adams (January 2014). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 January 2014

Can you remove |small=yes from template, so the lock template is visible? George Ho (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: @George Ho: I think readers might not be best served by making the protection notice the banner type. I would think that most visitors to the page just want to read the article, and don't really care about its protection status. For those readers, a banner stating that the page is protected is just getting in the way of what they came to the page for. I know that you have made similar requests at other indefinitely fully protected articles - how about starting a discussion on this at the village pump to gauge people's reaction to making the banner visible? Once we have a consensus on what to do, then my personal opinion won't be too relevant. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary category

Stephanie Adams is a model, not someone who specializes in metaphysics, as a philosopher, therefore, the "Category: American metaphysics writers" is redundant. For this reason I propose removing this category of the article.--Alexis0112 (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

But she writes books about metaphysics, and she's American. Who says that the category has to apply to a person who is only a philosopher, or primarily a philosopher? You'd need to show that independent, reliable third-party sources do not consider her books to be about metaphysics to successfully argue that the category does not belong. Just as a random example, Ruth Westheimer is included in the category Women in war even though she's best-known as a sex therapist, writer, and radio personality. But she also used to be a sniper and scout for a Jewish paramilitary organization in Palestine (the same group that later became the IDF), and was seriously wounded in battle. We don't have to only include categories that represent what a person is best-known for. -- Atama頭 19:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Metaphysics, the philosophical study whose object is to determine the real nature of things to determine the meaning, structure, and principles of whatever is insofar as it is. Metaphysicians are usually those philosophers who especialzan in this subdiscipline (see Category:Metaphysicians). Stephanie Adams is a model and does not specialize in metaphysics. I'm not sure she write about metaphysics. You could name any of his books that deal with this issue?--Alexis0112 (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Eric Hoffer was a longshoreman. Did that disqualify him as a philosopher? Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There are two separate meanings of "metaphysics". One is that of a formal branch of philosophy, per our article at Metaphysics. Stephanie Adams does not write metaphysics in this sense of the term. The other is as a term related to the New Age movement, which does seem associated with her writing. As far as I can tell, the category of "American metaphysics writers" is a subcat of philosophy, and refers to the formal philosophical study. It might be better to place her in the category of "New age writers" instead. - Bilby (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request - reference fixups

Please fix up two references:

Old #1:

<ref name="Curve">{{cite web|title=Honing her craft|last=Voo|first=Jocelyn|date=April 2005|work=[[Curve (magazine)|Curve]]|publisher=Outspoken Enterprises|page=57|accessdate=12 April 2012}}</ref>

New #1:

<ref name="Curve">{{cite web|title=Honing her craft|last=Voo|first=Jocelyn|date=April 2005|work=[[Curve (magazine)|Curve]]|publisher=Outspoken Enterprises|page=57|accessdate=31 May 2014|url=http://www.curvemag.com/Detailed/652.html|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20051202020706/http://www.curvemag.com/Detailed/652.html|arcivedate=2005-12-02}}</ref>

Old #2:

<ref>{{cite news|title=PLAYMATE A VAMPIRE, CABBY SAID|last=Olshan|first=Jeremy|date=2 August 2006|publisher=[[New York Post]]|accessdate=21 April 2012}}</ref>

New #2:

<ref>{{cite news|title=PLAYMATE A VAMPIRE, CABBY SAID|last=Olshan|first=Jeremy|date=2 August 2006|publisher=[[New York Post]]|accessdate=31 May 2014|url=http://nypost.com/2006/08/02/playmate-a-vampire-cabby-said/|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140531232021/http://nypost.com/2006/08/02/playmate-a-vampire-cabby-said/|archivedate=31 May 2014}}</ref>

Primary rationale: Get rid of hidden maintenance categories. Secondary rationale: Provide archive-urls for these two references. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The current ref. 1 is <ref name=wkp>{{cite web|url=http://www.playboy.com/girls/playmates/directory/199211.html |title=Stephanie Adams |work=playboy.com |accessdate=August 21, 2011}}</ref> and the current ref. 2 is <ref>Jocelyn Voo, "[http://web.archive.org/web/20070927011303/http://www.curvemag.com/Detailed/652.html Stephanie Adams: Honing Her Craft]", ''[[Curve (magazine)|Curve Magazine]],'' April 2005.</ref> There is no correspondence; the change would be too great. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting changes to 3 references

Please fix up three references. The net effect will be to merge a "print" reference with is corresponding "URL" reference and provide and archive URL for that reference, and to provide a URL and archiveurl for the third reference. It will also remove the page from two malformed-citation-related maintenance categories.

Request #1:

Change the reference immediately after the text "and [[Cherokee]] ancestry." FROM

<ref>Jocelyn Voo, "[http://web.archive.org/web/20070927011303/http://www.curvemag.com/Detailed/652.html Stephanie Adams: Honing Her Craft]", ''[[Curve (magazine)|Curve Magazine]],'' April 2005.</ref>

TO:

<ref name="Curve">{{cite web|title=Honing her craft|last=Voo|first=Jocelyn|date=April 2005|work=[[Curve (magazine)|Curve]]|publisher=Outspoken Enterprises|page=57|accessdate=31 May 2014|url=http://www.curvemag.com/Detailed/652.html|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20051202020706/http://www.curvemag.com/Detailed/652.html|archivedate=2005-12-02}}</ref>

Note: This changes the archive.org archiveurl from the 2007 archive to the 2005 archive. They are substantially identical in content. It also adds "page 57." This is a side-effect of harmonizing this reference with the one in the next request.

Request #2:

Change the SECOND reference immediately after the text "marketed under the ''Goddessy'' brand." FROM

<ref name="Curve">{{cite web|title=Honing her craft|last=Voo|first=Jocelyn|date=April 2005|work=[[Curve (magazine)|Curve]]|publisher=Outspoken Enterprises|page=57|accessdate=12 April 2012}}</ref>

TO

<ref name="Curve" />

This has the desired effect of providing a URL and archiveURL to the reference. It has the side-effect of changing the accessdate from 2012 to 2014.

Request #3:

Change the SECOND reference immediately after the text "fined $2,700 for the incident." FROM

<ref>{{cite news|title=PLAYMATE A VAMPIRE, CABBY SAID|last=Olshan|first=Jeremy|date=2 August 2006|publisher=[[New York Post]]|accessdate=21 April 2012}}</ref>

TO

<ref>{{cite news|title=PLAYMATE A VAMPIRE, CABBY SAID|last=Olshan|first=Jeremy|date=2 August 2006|publisher=[[New York Post]]|accessdate=31 May 2014|url=http://nypost.com/2006/08/02/playmate-a-vampire-cabby-said/|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140531232021/http://nypost.com/2006/08/02/playmate-a-vampire-cabby-said/|archivedate=31 May 2014}}</ref>

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the fixes! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting change in "Early Life" section

The Jocelyn Voo reference in the 1st sentence of the "Early Life" section does NOT support the claim that this person is of African-American ancestry. Egyptian and "West Indian" (West Indies? Native American? The source is not clear) ancestry, yes, but not "African American."

Please either add {{citation needed|date=June 2014}} after "She has [[African American]]," or strike the entire sentence "She has [[African American]], [[Caucasian race|Caucasian]], and [[Cherokee]] ancestry." and the Jocelyn Voo reference that follows. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Davidwr: I took the phrase "West Indian" as meaning the West Indies - I don't think it could be referring to Native American ancestry, particularly as the source says "Cherokee" in the same sentence. I agree that ancestry from Egypt and the West Indies doesn't necessarily equate to being "African American", but is there a better way we can word this rather than removing it entirely? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The source says "Part Cherokee, West Indian, Italian and Egyptian." Listing all of these seems like trivia. How about "She is of mixed ancestry."? That's not very satisfying. The best outcome would be to find a reference that supported her being African-American so the text could be left the way it is. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Fair enough. I've removed the sentence for now, and also the part about her being raised in New York, as that ended up being unsourced as well. Feel free to reactivate the request if you would like it tweaking some more. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's a reference from Google Books that describes her as African American. Please add the description. Also, please add back the Voo reference and the multiracial description. It provides more information than the term "African-American." Thank you. Racialized Politics of Desire in Personal Ads, retrieved 4 June 2014 Pkeets (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Her birthplace is already listed as Orange, New Jersey. However, the current reference seems to require an account to access, so you might replace it with this one. Stepanie Adams Net Worth, retrieved 4 June 2014 Pkeets (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The Richest is not a WP:RS. Dismas|^(talk) 14:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And the Playboy website is? Once a subject's notability has been established through good quality references, then the requirements for other information becomes less stringent. Pkeets (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue over WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'm just saying that their own terms of use specify that "the Website does not make any warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the sites content." (emphasis mine) Dismas|^(talk) 14:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, fine. Leave the Playboy reference then. However, listing her birthplace twice is still redundant. Pkeets (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

 Administrator note I believe it is common practice to repeat information from the lead in the body of the article. Reactivate the request if there is consensus for this change though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is not common practice to repeat the place of birth in the introduction. It should appear twice in the article: the infobox and the early life section, and the city name should be included in the early life section. —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I already activated a request for the two changes listed above and am currently waiting for the administrator response. Pkeets (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The book Racialized Politics of Desire in Personal Ads by Neal A. Lester and Maureen Daly Goggin; Lexington Books (Rowman & Littlefield), 2007, says on page 151 that: "Stephanie Adams, an African American..." This was mentioned above. So, is there some reason that her race has been removed from the Wikipedia bio? Is this source not reliable, or do we need additional sources to prove race beyond a reasonable doubt? Also, do people here realize that Egypt is in Africa? - 2001:558:1400:10:4D59:6811:C2AD:E3D5 (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've pointed this out and put in an edit request asking that the Voo reference be reentered. However, there has been no action on this as yet. It's interesting that the reference was removed only one day after the request, but putting it back hasn't been addressed after a week. Pkeets (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that her ethnicity should be added back. It is neither controversial nor unbelievable. It is documented in her Playboy pictorial and her web site, also in other articles online. AngelAdvocate (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the duplicated info about the birth place as requested above. If you specify exactly what changes you require with regard to ancestry, I will add it back in. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Deactivated request for now. Awaiting input from editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The statement and Voo source on her ancestry that was removed from the article was fine. Please add that back. In addition, please add the Politics of Desire source as additional support for the statement. I believe it's already used in the article, so it would be helpful if you named it. See here: Racialized Politics of Desire in Personal Ads, retrieved 4 June 2014 According to an editor above, the duplicate birth date info was fairly standard, so please add that back. I'd also be in favor of adding the information presented below on her ownership of two companies. Do you want a paragraph written up on that? Pkeets (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Doesn't her web site mention her ancestry as Black, White and Native American? It has been noted in her pictorial as well. Not sure why it was removed recently. She looks mixed race too.

Also, she has had several updates to be noted. For one, she has a reported celebrity net worth of $4 million. Also, she now owns two businesses besides Goddessy. Both Goddessy Organics and Wall Street Chiropractic have her name and photos on their company web sites. Several articles and interviews online mention both corporations along with her ownership.

AngelAdvocate (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that these would be appropriate information to add. Perhaps you might put in an edit request, too? Pkeets (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I am new here but will try to figure out how to put that request in. Have you done it already? Her companies have gotten a significant amount of press lately - Just google "wall street chiropractic stephanie adams" and "stephanie adams goddessy organics" - Both company web sites goddessyorganics.com and chironewyork.com clearly list her as the owner and include her photograph. AngelAdvocate (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments 2

Stephanie Adams is now the owner of Goddessy Organics (see www.goddessyorganics.com) and Wall Street Chiropractic (see www.chironewyork.com) but both organizations have not been mentioned here on Wikipedia. Both companies have received a tremendous amount of press if you google them, so shouldn't they be added on such a valued source like this one?

Also, her ethnicity was removed but it is clear that she is of mixed race, both in her pictorial as well as her official web site listed here as www.stephanieadams.com. I am among a few others who believe her ethnicity is neither controversial nor unbelievable and should be added back as it has been listed for many years already, with no question.

Anything else to add, like her being an investor and entrepreneur? She is mentioned in articles on Yahoo Finance, Price of Business for Bloomberg, Celebrity Net Worth (of $4M) and several more.

Thank you for reading. AngelAdvocate (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 June 2014

Stephanie Adams is the owner of Goddessy Organics and Wall Street Chiropractic. I am requesting this information be added to the article about her.

Sources:

http://www.goddessyorganics.com

http://www.chironewyork.com

http://www.stephanieadams.com

http://au.pfinance.yahoo.com/photos/photo/-/22073503/how-i-made-1-million/22073513/

http://www.priceofbusiness.com/?p=3688&print=1

http://www.priceofbusiness.com/?p=3705&print=1

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=style&sc=home&sc2=features&sc3=&id=158300

http://www.sunnyskyz.com/blog/13/The-Real-Face-Behind-The-Illuminati

http://domainnameadvice.com/stephanie-adams-on-brandable-and-geo-business-domain-names/

http://www.onlineprnews.com/news/284211-1353422569.playboy-model-stephanie-adams-launches-wall-street-chiropractic-and-new-photos-after-12m-lawsuit.html

http://www.onlineprnews.com/news/448075-1387725581-the-goddess-of-wall-street-playboy-centerfold-introduces-skin-care-line-to-wall-street-chiropractic.html

Soho527 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Goddessy is already mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Question: All of those sources seem to be primary as the ones I've sampled seem to be all interviews and there is one that is the topic's own website.  Do you happen to have a non-primary source that might make this request doable by an administrator? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's one: Yoga teacher sues ..... added at 23:36, 25 June 2014 by Pkeets

That article doesn't mention "Goddessy". As for "Wall Street", it's phrased very curiously. Example: the Wall Street chiropractic clinic that self-confessed lesbian Stephanie Adams owns with her doctor husband, Charles Nicolai. This could just be some clinic (name unspecified) that happens to be in Wall Street. (Additionally: What has "lesbian" got to do with being sued? And even if it is relevant, then why is being lesbian thought to be something "confessed"? Is the writer some relic from the booboisie of the 1940s?) However, the later article "Playmate's lawyer says firing ‘too cute’ yoga instructor not discrimination" does mention "[Nikolai's] and Adams’ Wall Street Chiropractic and Wellness". Again this is dubious as the paper can't spell Nicolai's surname right (I assume that wallstreetchiropractic.com is correct about this). -- Hoary (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean to suggest that the quality of journalism isn't what it used to be? Pkeets (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Much journalism has always been lazy. Piecing together the jigsaw, it seems that her husband's name is Charles Nicolai (no "k") and that they co-own "Wall Street Chiropractic and Wellness"; do we have a RS that says this? -- Hoary (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's the whole family on the business website (Awww), but the write up doesn't mention her name. Here's one that does mention both names.Pkeets (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As your second source doesn't manage to spell the man's name right, it doesn't seem to have been put together with much care. I wonder how reliable it is on the matter of ownership. And ownership isn't even mentioned in your first source. -- Hoary (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Goddessy is her book publishing company but Goddessy Organics is her skincare business. It is not noted on Wikipedia even though she is the business owner http://www.goddessyorganics.com/who-we-are.html

As to a third party source that can spell a name that is often spelled Nicolai or Nicolai, they spell it right here http://www.law360.com/m/articles/508474/too-cute-yoga-teacher-can-t-show-bias-ex-bosses-say

The goddessy organics page also acknowledges her as the owner of Wall Street Chiropractic. It is obvious that she is, given the sources. Here is another one http://chironewyork.com/about-us.html

I will look for more links in the meantime, if needed.

Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I added "co-owner of Wall Street Chiropractic and Wellness", citing the Law360 piece. (Your sources for the "Goddessy Organics" claim seem weak.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'm not sure why her page is fully protected when most biographies aren't, but I do believe her own web site is sufficient http://www.goddessyorganics.com/who-we-are.html to mention her skincare company or even this link which is one of many third party sources listed http://www.edgeboston.com/style/home/features//158300/who%E2%80%99s_your_mama?_10_unique_mother%E2%80%99s_day_gifts She also has a two page spread in the May 2014 issue of Fashion Affair Magazine pgs. 83-84 http://issuu.com/topboutiqueshop/docs/may_2014_preview_d292e5acbfce27 All the links mentioned above note her as the owner of Goddessy Organics. Can this be included along with her books and tarot cards amongst the "Goddessy" brand?

Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I also don't know why it's fully protected. The first of the two links that you present as third-party says that she "created" the products. Or something very similar; but anyway, not that she co-owns the business. The second is explicit, but it appears to be a mere advertisement. (OTOH "editorial" material in publications like this is often little more than reformatted adverts, so I'm not sure.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In every single source mentioned prior, as well as other ones if you google "stephanie adams goddessy organics" you will see her always noted as the "founder and CEO" of Goddessy Organics, not just the creator and not even as a co-owner. Her being the founder and CEO is even noted as such on the Goddessy Organics web site.

Is a former model owning a skincare business so remarkable or controversial? It can simply be included as a one sentence fact or a few words included as part of the Goddessy brand.

And by the way, the numerous interviews and articles I listed are reliable third party sources, not paid advertisements.

Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any controversy, no. I have no opinion about remarkableness. Claim X can be added as fact if you bring forth a reliable source for X, as opposed to an assertion that piles of unspecified Google hits back X. (You'll recall that when you brought forward what looked like a reliable source for the claim that she's the co-owner of Wall Street Chiropractic and Wellness, this was promptly added to the article.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

African American ancestry

The statement and Voo source on her ancestry that was hastily removed from the article was sufficiently supported by the source. It's available in the history. Please add that back. In addition, please add the Politics of Desire source as additional support for the statement. I believe it's already used in the article, so it would be helpful to name it. See here: Racialized Politics of Desire in Personal Ads, retrieved 4 June 2014 Pkeets (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Davidwr: any thoughts on this? Politics of Desire looks like a good source to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been discussed above--there's just been no action on it. The Voo source was adequate to indicate African American heritage because it described Egyptian heritage--Egypt is in Africa. Since there was enough question about this to remove the statement, Politics of Desire will provide the exact wording for those who are geographically challenged. However, the Voo source should also be replaced, as it is more descriptive of her mixed heritage. Pkeets (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The sticking point is that Egypt isn't in Sub-Saharan Africa - see the definition in the African American article. Due to this mismatch, a source saying that she has Egyptian ancestry isn't enough to say that she is African American. But the Politics of Desire source, which says it explicitly, is a different story. That said, I would still like to hear from Davidwr to see what he thinks, as it was his objection that made me remove the ancestry statement in the first place and he hasn't commented in the more recent discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I left a note on his page. Pkeets (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Pkeets: Davidwr has provided an answer below, but it's a little too vague to support adding the statement back to the article as it was. So I had a look for sources myself, and found this bio in a Goddessy calender, written by the subject. It says, Adams is an exotic mix of Black, White and American Indian (specifically West Indian, Cherokee Indian, English, Welsh, Italian and Egyptian). Compare that to the previous Curve magazine source which says Part Cherokee, West Indian, Italian and Egyptian, Adams was also the first Playboy centerfold to come out. It looks like the "African American" label is referring to her West Indian heritage, not (or at least not only) to her Egyptian heritage. In any case, if she considers herself to be a "mix of Black, White and American Indian", then saying she has African American ancestry seems fine to me. How about restoring the previous wording with citations to both the Curve source and the Goddessy calender? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's fine with me. Using the calendar has the advantage of showing how she self-identifies. However, it will be a primary source. Will that lead to challenges in the future? Pkeets (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Done I've added the sentence back. I can't say for certain that no-one will challenge it, but with the two sources it's better-supported than it was previously, and it seems to satisfy Davidwr's bullet points below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good. Pkeets (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Business Ownership

I hope people realize I do not mean any harm or disrespect to any editors. Are there any others who'd like to chime in on the discussions here? This woman seems to have quite an interesting biography on other websites. Her business ownership is quite apparent by many sources. I feel like the administrators are doubling as bodyguards. Why is her page so protected? I am not asking to add anything offensive. After reading all the talk here prior, I'm sure other editors have a bit of input or opinion.

Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is her page so protected? It seems that the Arbitration Committee requires special treatment for this article. A template above announces this, but I don't see any discussion or explanation of it. The best I can give you is the very little that appears at the top of Articles for deletion/Stephanie Adams (3). And the only place I know of to ask about it is the alarmingly legalistic Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, though I've a feeling I'm overlooking some obvious alternative. Perhaps somebody else can give you a better answer. -- Hoary (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm the admin who protected this article. There are some privacy issues involved here, but what I can tell you is that this article has been a long-term target for serious harassment by a user persistently using multiple accounts, and after years of trying to deal with it at lesser protection levels, I decided the only other route forward was full protection under Arbcom's special BLP sanctions. You can see my original logging of that here. Given the recent flurry of interest in Ms Adams here (did it come up somewhere offwiki or something? I've never seen so many people suddenly interested in editing a lesser-known BLP all at once), I'm not inclined to weaken that now.

As far as appealing the decision, Hoary basically has it right. At the time, the protection was logged under this provision; that has apparently been superseded now by standard Discretionary Sanctions. The routes provided for appeal in that new set of rules are the sanctioning administrator (me, and as I've said I'm not too enthusiastic about unprotecting in the midst of a flurry of attention), WP:AE (for consensus among arb-inclined admins), or WP:AN (for community consensus). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is on my watchlist since I've edited it in the past, so the recent change is probably what has attracted attention. Removing the statement about the woman's African American heritage (see above) is an example of the kind of challenges that occur with this article. A look through the references already provided would have easily shown that the statement was supported. Instead, the requested edit suggests that the edit warring has now become a proxy battle.Pkeets (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy, what did I stumble upon. I found her Wikipedia page after reading about her in Fashion Affair magazine. Isn't a magazine article a good enough source? What about an online one like http://madamenoire.com/436703/getting-fired/2/

What exactly are you looking for to believe she owns a skincare company? The company website mentions her ownership clearly. Tell me which of the links I provided are not sufficient or use more than one if needed.

She is not famous like most celebs but you've got to admit her life story is fascinating. Thanks.

Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It is. She seems to be a very interesting and productive self-starter. I think you're to be commended for offering to expand the article. Most activity in the past seems to have been aimed at a) deleting the article, or b) chipping away at parts of it to make her seems less notable. Notice that almost every sentence in the article has a source, meaning that it has been challenged. I'm still pursuing the change that removed the description of her melting pot heritage, but I'd be happy to assist in looking at the skin care company. Which reference appears to be best quality for use in the article? Pkeets (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't get a couple of the links above to work, but what about this one? It looks less commercial and more informative than some. Pkeets (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A premiss above is that what's in "Fashion Affair" is an article. To me, it reads like an advertisement. Do you think it reads like an article?

The globalbrandsmagazine.com piece appears to be a recycled PR release.

The madamenoire.com piece appears to be based on an interview with SA. 

As for (im)plausibility, I can't talk about the US skincare market. As it happens, I do know something about the Japanese skincare market. It does happen that a celeb owns a company (example) but it's unusual. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

So which source do you prefer on the skin care products? It only takes about $100 to file for incorporation. I'm sure she's very practiced at it by now. Pkeets (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

How about this for "founder and CEO"? -- Hoary (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a primary source. Wouldn't a secondary source be preferable? Pkeets (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Conde Nast a good source? http://parade.condenast.com/290212/janenemascarella/cheap-tricks-17-ways-to-look-beautiful-for-less/ The Goddessy Organics official skincare site looks reliable enough too. Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I added this just a few minutes ago. -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Start Class? Why not add instead of remove?

I've seen less notable people and subjects on Wikipedia with bigger articles. I'm still not sure why her ethnicity was removed even though it has been thoroughly documented on her site and other sources. I am also not sure why the sources that mention her companies have to be so thoroughly scrutinized before being added. Aside from her photo which is enough to make it believable, isn't the mention of her being Black/White/Cherokee in the November 1992 issue of Playboy magazine enough to reference her obvious ancestry? I managed to find a copy and sure enough her ethnic background is in there. I think the heading about her should include "entrepreneur" as well. Why not fulfill the purpose of Wikipedia and write more? Being in Playboy alone does not define this lady. Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have more to add and can produce reliable sources for this material, it can be added.

It has never occurred to me that Playboy's potted bios of its models should be taken at all seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts on her ethnicity

I was one of the reasons why her ethnicity was removed. At the time of the request for removal, her enthnicity was not properly sourced (or not sourced at all, I forget).

I have been asked to give my opinion regarding ethnicity in this article, so here it is:

• If her claim of ethnicity is non-controversial and accurate, then a self-published source can be used.
• If it is not accurate or if it's misleading, then the accurate, non-misleading information should be presented along with a reliable source to back it up. If there is no reliable source, then I recommend leaving the ethnicity out altogether.
• If she uses her ethnicity in a self-serving way such as for marketing purposes, then an independent, reliable, independent source should be found or the information left out altogether.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)