Talk:Stephanie Adams

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[1]. --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)

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)

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)

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)