Talk:Priscilla Wadsworth

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --PriscillaW8 (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It's my own page and my own words from my own website. I am the owner of PriscillaWadsworth.com

@PriscillaW8: Have you made an irrevocable donation of the material on your website, that says that anybody can use the material now or at any point in the future for any use, even commercial reuse?

Even if you do give the material away, we still may have to edit it for tone and other reasons to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards. —C.Fred (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Does this mean I HAVE to change the About section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaW8 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@PriscillaW8: You shouldn't be writing an article about yourself at all. That said, if the text is original to Wikipedia, then we don't have to worry about whether you've donated the website material or not. —C.Fred (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Does that mean it will be deleted regardless? I created it so that it would be easier to link me to the Wired article (linked in the references section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaW8 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@PriscillaW8: Having read the Wired article, I am now convinced that the copyright violation is a secondary concern. The main concern is that there is no assertion of significance or importance. —C.Fred (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain further why that is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaW8 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Should I have included more articles like these: https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/alabama-football/local-artist-eye-saban-crimson-tide-football/

https://tdalabamamag.com/2014/03/11/priscilla-wadsworth-alabama-passion-through-ink/

https://bamahammer.com/2014/06/04/priscilla-wadsworth-celebrating-the-crimson-dynasty-through-art/

@PriscillaW8: She's an artist without major awards who happened to meet her spouse online. Just because she's one of the first known cases—at least in this new Rec Room app—doesn't ascribe significance or importance to her. People have been meeting other people online and later getting married for at least 20 years. —C.Fred (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

What about the other articles I've included about my artwork? Saturday Down South is a big sports site. I'd also say being license by a popular VR game company is notable. I'd also argue being the first people to marry in VR is notable and interesting otherwise Wired would not have taken the time to write an entire article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaW8 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Funny, Wired wrote about the first online wedding twelve years ago, too.[1] —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the Saturday Down South article as well as the other 2 I mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaW8 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That's why I haven't pulled the trigger and deleted the article. I don't think the art makes Wadsworth notable, but I think it enough of an assertion of significance to at least subject the article to wider review before deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, virtual reality is still really fresh, so it's not far fetched, and Wired is a very respected and popular magazine.

Do we have an article on the first people to leave their wedding reception by car? Cars were really fresh, too. —C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you take a look at my other articles about my sports art? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaW8 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your giving it a chance. Should I also include my NPR performance?

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6748215

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... I have cited many articles, some from popular news sites, on why this is of significance. --PriscillaW8 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You'll notice that the article was {{in use}} for the last fifteen minutes. During that time, I rewrote the article to show why the subject is significant—and hopefully a notable person—because of her artwork. I have also cleaned up the copyright violation and removed the offending versions of the page. The article, in its current form, is not tagged for speedy deletion either as a copyright violation or for a lack of significance or importance. However, that would not prevent an editor from nominating the article via the WP:Articles for deletion process. —C.Fred (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Should we include the NPR performance/article as well as mention that my artwork was briefly mentioned on ESPN during the Heisman special during the Derrick Henry segment to give it a better chance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaW8 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It's in, if for no other reason than it gives an age as of a date. —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it even if it ends up deleted anyway. I wish I could have a link for the ESPN thing, but I only have a picture of the tv when they mentioned my name on my drawing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaW8 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Image

@PriscillaW8: Hi, I think it would be great if you could upload a photograph of yours using the upload button below. --Saqib (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

of myself or my art? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaW8 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib I uploaded it. Now I am not sure how to add it to the article properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaW8 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)