Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bostic5.0 (talk | contribs) at 05:49, 8 April 2006 (→[[Rikki Lee Travolta]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rikki Lee Travolta

Self promotion, no reliable sources to back up claims made, claims father Michael is brother of John Travolta, but John has no brother Michael. Same story with their imdb entry [1], [2] (which claims that their nickname is Hero!?). Also listed as an employee at a marketing company here which describes them as a "Top Ten Amazon.com recommended author" (even though their book afded below is ranked 400,000) and "an internationally published journalist" while making no mention of their acting or singing career. Has a website http://www.travoltanet.com/.Arniep 01:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seemed pretty easy to document all the sources if I did it right.[3] Easy to find tons of references to family, career, everything. It was fun and not that hard. I wouldn't delete it at all. Apparently John Travolta only has a half-brother named Michael, which might be the cause of all this commotion. Once I stumbled on that discovery it was easy to see the glaring fact that the listing of John Travolta's siblings specifies not total number of siblings, but total number of siblings from the union of Salvatore Travolta and Helen Burke [4]. Big difference when you look at it in that light. References in all the press to Rikki Lee Travolta are all to grandfather being Salvatore Travolta and father being born outside US (as in shamed outside of marital grounds pregnancy). No mention to Grandmother being Helen Burke. That is further hit home in the brand new category by Arniep Travolta Family [5] that again stipulates only decedents of the union of Salvatore Travolta and Helen Burke Travolta. That would exclude any half siblings and descendents. I suggest Rikki Lee Travolta be kept and category "Travolta Family" should be changed to "Travolta-Burke Family"? KingJamesCav 05:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. Royboycrashfan 01:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything to back up some of the claims made, and I suspect that there's a high degree of promotion going on here. Brian G. Crawford 02:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a real discrepancy between this article and the IMDB credits, which basically show him as an extra or bit player. IMDB also claims his father is Australian, which would contradict the claim that John is his uncle. Looks like self-promotion from an aspiring actor. Fan1967 02:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article makes many claims the imdb article doesn't nothing in the imdb article shows any notability, and book is published by Infinity Publishing, which is a self-publishing outfit. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Bucketsofg 02:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 10:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. --Sam67fr 13:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. The subject is notable as an actor so article could be re-created, but not with the inflated and probably inaccurate claims that are in the current article. JRawle (Talk) 13:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak Strong Keep He is certainly the nephew frequently is called a relative (nephew or cousin - see my comment below) of John Travolta [6] [7] [8] [9] and can be called some sort of celebrity [10]. His name has 21900 Google hits and his book My Fractured Life also gets more than 13000 Google hits. So I think he is notable Gu 14:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those sites are are likely just sites used by agencies to promote their clients WP:RS. Arniep 16:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, the TV guide link says "There's also some kind of grassroots campaign on behalf of singer/theater actor Rikki Lee Travolta". A grassroots campaign led by who??? Secondly the Chicago Sun Times link is inexplicably not at the Chicago Sun Times website. Arniep 21:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while I still think he is in some way related to John (but also think this point is rather unimportant) there is also a reference saying he is the cousin (not the nephew) of John [14] [15] which would possibly explain why his father is not mentioned as John's brother. I agree that there is an awful lot of terrible self promotion and that the article should be cleaned. Still he seems to me slightly more notable than non-notable, although I admit my strong keep should rather have been a week keep - so I modify my vote. Gu 08:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion at Talk:Rikki Lee Travolta or Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta and reconsider. Thatcher131 00:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- P199 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Google hits for My Fractured Life seem to be equal parts cross posted press releases and coincidental uses of the phrase in blogs, with a few bookstores sprinkled in. Ehheh 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I started the Annie Travolta page and have been a contributor to many of the Travolta family pages including Margaret Travolta, Rikki Lee Travolta, Annie Travolta, and John Travolta. Many of those changes are reverting vandalism. It is right there in the history. There is no way, shape, or form that could remotely be confused as being in an “advertising scam”. I have NEVER removed members of the Travolta family from listings. I have worked hard to keep the integrity in tact. I think upon closer inspection you’ll see there was an influx of attempts by an anon (66.121.40.132) to vandalizing different Travolta family sites [16] (changing facts without providing sources or citations). When the anon seemed to be starting a revert war with different users I followed Wiki policy [17]and contacted them on their discussion page [18] to request documentation for the changes being made.
Its been noticed that you have made several repeated changes to the family elements of the John Travolta page and related pages. The policy at Wikipedia is to try to avoid revert wars going back and forth over the same territory. As follows are what we have confirmed as members of the Travolta family: Margaret Travolta, John Travolta, Ellen Travolta, Joey Travolta, Rikki Lee Travolta; Jack Bannon, Rachel Travolta, Nicole Travolta, Michael Salvatore Travolta, Helen (Burke) Travolta, Kelly Preston, Salvatore Travolta, Molly Allen Ritter, Jonathan Rau, Jet Travolta, Tom Fridley, Sam Travolta, Ella Blue Travolta, Valentino Travolta, and Annie Travolta. This is not an all inclusive list, but all those listed are confirmed. In respecting Wikipedia policy it is always necessary to approach differences of opinion in good faith. Although we have documented each of these individuals as relatives (of different levels of removal or closeness of course) within the extended Travolta family, ff you disagree with any person(s) on this list please provide the documentation and we should be able to come to a simple understanding relatively quickly (no pun intended). We thank you in advance for your cooperation.
The anon (66.121.40.132) did not respond. I assumed the matter was dropped but now I find out I am being lumped in some kind of witch hunt accusation by Arniep who seems to have some vendetta [19] based on feelings and assumptions without citing any sources and discounting such sources as TV Guide [20] and The Chicago Sun Times [21] as "just sites used by agencies".[22]
Firstly, the TV guide link says "There's also some kind of grassroots campaign on behalf of singer/theater actor Rikki Lee Travolta". A grassroots campaign led by who??? Secondly the Chicago Sun Times link is inexplicably not at the Chicago Sun Times website. Thirdly, the person you contacted had removed Rikki Lee Travolta from all the Travolta pages saying "Rikki Lee is not part of this clan" you then reverted them (see Special:Contributions/66.121.40.132). Arniep 20:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it's easy to make accusations like that, I think if you look at the history and facts you'll see that is very very far from the truth. Nobody is planning any big conspiracy. The Russians are not invading. Paramountpr 22:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Arniep's talk page [23] you see a long history of jumping to conclusions and waging war on opinions that are different than Arniep's. Not the spirit of good faith [24] that is intended and required for successful interaction. Sorry - one person's opinion shouldn't outweigh the facts. And Arniep is trying to make wide sweeping changes purely on opinioin without citing facts and ignoring the facts that do exist. The Rikki Lee Travolta [25] page appears to (now) have good documentation. The other page named: My Fractured Life [26] needs to be cleaned up and is so marked. This is nothing more than a witch hunt if you ask me and I'm offended to have been included in it because I was the one who tried to follow Wiki policy [27] to avoid this kind of pointless McCarthyism. Paramountpr 18:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you are obviously a sockpuppet of the many other user accounts each used for a short time to edit the same articles and push the same point of views listed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_advertising_scam . Arniep 20:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rikki Lee Travolta is a real person and a relative of John per Daily Variety, the Chicago Sun-Times, Toronto Star, and others, per a Lexis/Nexis search. For example, from the New York Post in 2002,
THERE'S a strange postscipt to our item the other day about the Internet rumor that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas have created a computer-generated actor called "Rikki Lee Travolta." A rather odd actor named Rikki Lee Travolta does in fact exist, and held a press conference in Chicago Tuesday to prove it. "It's good to be alive," he stated. "I am an actor. I am a human being." Travolta, who is of Italian and Native American extraction and claims some family connection with John Travolta, appeared in "West Side Story" on Broadway. He wrote a novel, sports a gunshot wound and claims a doctorate in religious studies. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
Whether this person is notable enough for an article is another matter. Thatcher131 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link you posted sums this up perfectly: an 'Internet rumor' was created, then he held a press conference to disprove it. He claimed to be related to John Travolta. Arniep 20:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A user has posted this link to the Rikki Lee Travolta page as a source. This page originates at PRWeb which describes itself as "a free online press release distribution service" and encourages users to "Write compelling stories. Your news release should capture the attention and imagination of the editors, journalists and writers that use this service as a resource for their work.". The page mentions a film that Rikki Lee Travolta was in called Camelot: Excalibur directed by Donna DeCarl and that the DVD will be released in 2004 by Abracadabra Productions. This is Donna DeCarl's IMDb entry here. Abracadabra productions are a Wedding photography company here. There is no film that exists called Camelot: Excalibur. Arniep 21:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don’t understand what the argument is.
Is it that Rikki is related to John?
Is it that Rikki is the best actor in the world?
Is it that the Travolta’s are successful enough to have a good publicist for Rikki?
Every time you voice an argument and someone proves you wrong or provides the sources you demand you change your argument.
First you said your problem was you wanted proof that Rikki Lee Travolta is John Travolta’s nephew. When Gu provided you with a TV Guide article that said specifically he is his nephew, your response was to say TV Guide isn’t a big enough magazine.
When I called you to the carpet on that and pointed out it’s one of the biggest magazines in the world, you responded by quoting the article EXCEPT for the part that says Rikki is John’s nephew and then changed your argument to be about some kind of grass roots something or other. (huh?)
Then you say that a reprint of a Chicago Sun Times article doesn’t count because its on an rss feed site instead of a direct link, so Thatcher131 gives you references in Variety, Toronto Star, and New York Post.
So you get frustrated and say we’re sock puppets?
Really, this is getting to be too much. I don’t know if the guy ran over your cat or dipped your pigtails in ink or what but when is enough enough?
Every time your arguments are disproved, you change your argument, and when all else fails you just call us names. Is that constructive?
When you first put a notice on the guy’s site that said it lacked sources, that was a good move. It did lack sources. Now it has sources that have been verified. Why change the argument? You won – you wanted sources, you got sources. The page is now Wiki compliant.
Sometimes people get so into fighting they forget what they wanted to accomplish. You already won and you don’t realize it. You wanted sources, you got sources. The article is good. Deletion isn’t even an issue any more because you got what you asked for.
Unless your have some purpose you haven’t shared with us – the issue is over. The sources you wanted have been cited and confirmed. Paramountpr 22:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being related to someone famous does not make you notable. I'm not convinced by anything else I've seen that he is sufficiently notable in himself to warrant an article. Marcus22 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bottom line, no matter if he's related to John Travolta or not, how does anything he's done make him notable enough for an article? I am on record as having had strong disagreements with Arniep in the past, but he cares about Wikipedia. It sounds to me like these "sources" are all bits that came from a very good publicist. So again we get into my own problem, which is what Wikipedia considers a good source. Just because something's in print doesn't make it so. And Rikki Lee Travolta has publicity mill written all over him. I don't know the criteria for putting a person in Wikipedia - but if there is criteria, on that alone, I vote for deletion.Chandler75 22:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excellent points. The puffery of the article makes it difficult to take seriously anything that can't be verified. Based on the actual credits, his appearances in EdTV and Patch Adams aren't worth mentioning, and shouldn't have been. What's left? One indie movie, straight-to-video, involving nobody you've ever heard of, and a vanity-published book. Fan1967 00:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as his relationship to John Travolta, he fails to mention that relationship in his book. He sounds like that guy Elvis Presley, Jr.Chandler75 22:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the imdb profile two of the entries are uncredited parts and the other film probably did not actually exist and was created for resume purposes. Arniep 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You actually cannot put in a fake film on imdb - their criteria and the information they required is strict and verifiable - but it probably was an independent, right to DVD movie. Anyone who has worked in a film gets an imdb profile and will have verifiable credits listed. The bio, however, can be written by the person, a friend, a publicist, and can make all sorts of outrageous claims. There is still nothing that makes him noted enough for a bio on Wikipedia.Chandler75 01:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well. In 2000 I submitted to the IMDB the full cast and credits of the film "The Prophecy 3" (with Christopher Walken). However, I added actress Linnea Quigley to the cast, as playing a character I labelled "Hooker". The IMDB put her in along with everyone else. The credit is still there today, and will no doubt stay. Quigley was actually asked about how it was working with Walken in an interview! The best part? She said she didn't remember if she was in the movie, and she thought she might have been! That's how reliable your IMDB is. JackO'Lantern 01:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said a fake film, not adding someone to a film. Try submitting a fake film and see how far you get. And try submitting a fake actor. If the actor has an imdb profile and the film is real, I suppose you can put someone in the cast who wasn't there because they could have been cut. I have independent films on DVD on my desk that I can't get on the imdb site, and I was a guest on 7 episodes of a TV show and can't get my own name on the episode lists that I myself added (I'm not currently on imdb as a "name" only as a contributor).Chandler75 02:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, there must have been some first-time actors in a video movie like Prophecy 3. And obviously, the IMDB would have accepted them and created profiles for them, if say, I had submitted them as part of the whole cast, like I did Quigley. So it is fairly easy to create a first-time actor, and "maintain" them, if you submit a bunch of reliable looking credits for films. You can find Quigley's reaction (funny because it reflects the reality of the video horror industry) to being asked about the film in this interview, [28]. JackO'Lantern 02:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I couldn't get my name in as part of a "cast" - imdb only took those people already on imdb. Unless they're just not watching like they used to - I've had trouble getting many legitimate credits for people on, and that includes production credits. E-mail me if you think you can add me, all I can say, and then tell me your secret.Chandler75 03:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been fake films added to IMDb before and also ones that were announced but never made or released. They generally get deleted if evidence accrues that it never existed or is not going to be made. Black the Ripper was deleted I think after a TV Guide column in which people who were supposed to have been involved with it were interviewed, and entries for the 4th and 5th Return of the Living Dead movies disappeared and reappeared as it went through development hell. Шизомби 15:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also gather he's playing Thor on the new Marvel film. A little crystal ballery, but that will be notable. -Mask 01:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nooooooooooooooooooooo.!!! Please look at the talk page, this person has a history of putting out misleading press releases and this Thor one is no different. Arniep 01:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arniep -Mask
  • Strong Keep sounds to me like a lot of people don't like him. That don't mean he's not notable. Just the opposite. Notable doesn't just meant people who are loved, you can be hated and be notable too. High googles, high press coverage, high number of opinions...that definitely passes the WP:KIT test. If Rikki Lee Travolta is more notable than Nidorino or any other random Pokémon gets its own page, then Rikki Lee Travolta can be hated but get his own page.  : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 02:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't like him? I don't know who he is! Even Wikipedia with its rather loose "legitimate references" I don't think considers publicity items and "high googles" legitimate. Now, if you want to make a case for him being notable as an ersatz celebrity who launches wild publicity campaigns and self-publishes a bio as if he's already established as the next James Dean, you may have a point.Chandler75 02:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that Lonesomedovechocolate first edit was today and that she and immediately went to the articles for deletion. I was under the impression that that was not a common thing for new users to do. Nor was immediate proper signing and formating of deletion comments. And on her second edit she knows what a stub is. JoshuaZ 02:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because LonesomeDove just landed over from Sockpuppet heaven... JackO'Lantern 02:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to clean it up as nothing released about him is reliable (see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/My Fractured Life). Arniep 13:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't news sources they are PRs sent out by this person and their agent. Arniep 13:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am constantly amazed that new editors are able to find their way to this deletion debate without ever having visited Rikki's article itself. It's like they're psychic or something. Note to closing admin protection against recreation would probably be a good idea. Thatcher131 16:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I start to think that maybe the best would be to Redirect to press release as this Rikki is certainly most notable for his ability to launch successful press releases and this would help to avoid likely good faith recreations Gu 19:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "verifiable" source for the statement that Rikki was "the first celebrity guest star for the Tony n' Tina's Wedding franchise" is hosted on onlypunjab. (which has a prominent link in the corner to post your own press release. If that isn't the definition of non-notable I don't know what is.Thatcher131 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: He seems to be a rising actor who is at least somewhat notable. There's a lot more info on him than I would've guessed after seeing all the deletes. --Wizardman 22:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. He's a rising actor. Wait until he's risen and then he will warrant a page on Wikipedia.Chandler75 04:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which info in particular? Arniep 23:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has a fairly versatile career consisting of theater and literary accomplishments, and Him being "considered" for the James Bond role (whether or not it was fake) kinda pushed me over into keeping him up. He hasn't done a LOT, but I think he's done enough to at least get his own page. I'll put some more information on him into his page if I can find some more, becuase it's out there. --Wizardman 00:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I'd like my own page. I've had three books published, had my own weekly column in an international magazine, and have appeared on stage and television -more than Rikki Lee. I also generate more hits than he does since I now write a daily column. I'll add to my website that I was considered for a Bond girl, claim to be Madonna's cousin, and we're good to go. If someone tried to write me up and submit me for an article here, I think it would be proposed for deletion - probably by Arnie! And he'd be within his rights.Chandler75 04:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can something that might be fake push you into keeping the article? And have you looked at the discussion on the literary accomplishment below Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_5#My_Fractured_Life? Arniep 00:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note that the claimed appearences in major productions such as Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat cannot be verified. Arniep 00:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I worded that a little wrong. What I meant by "might be fake" is that it (the Bond rumor)might have been self-promoted by him. Still though, he has over 20,000 google hits, and while it's hard to find one true reason to give him an article, it's hard to find a reason to get rid of it completely. He seems to be a guy that puts up a facade about himself, definitely. I'm conflicted on my opinion now, though.--Wizardman 00:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the CD he has on Amazon here. The first reviewer only reviews one other thing, a book entitled "Another Bullshit Night in Suck City: A Memoir" on which they comment: "In the same ballpark as "A Million Little Pieces", "My Fractured Life", and "Fortress of Solitude."". Note My Fractured Life. Arniep 00:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

I’m going to start by following the guidelines and announcing for the whole wide world that I have contributed to editing the Rikki Lee Travolta wikipedia page. This is the point that I get attacked for having contributed to the Rikki Lee Travolta wikipedia page and it should somehow disqualify me from voting on whether it should be deleted or not. See, there’s a flaw there. I contributed. I have an active interest. I have an established knowledge that proceeds this debate. Therefore it makes full sense that I should cast a vote.

In fact, the wikipedia guidelines specifically state that when someone submits a page for deletion the principle contributers should be notified for the very reason that their input would be valuable. To go one step further the wikipedia guidelines actual encourage notifying the key contributors prior to submitting a deletion nomination so see if a simple fix is possible.

Guess what? I was never contacted. I stumbled on the fact all this kangaroo kourt business is going on when someone changed a page I was watching that I contributed to and I followed the links back to here. Boy was I surprised.

Guess what else? I did a little research in following talk links. Not only was this page put up for deletion without notifying me, who admittedly only did a few edits, but NOBODY who made ANY positive comments or contributions was contacted. That’s not the policy.

Wait? You mean this little kangaroo kourt might not be on the up and up. No! Don’t say it.

Guess what else? There people contacted, it seems everyone who had something negative to contribute at any point in history was contacted and encouraged and invited to come vote for deletion.

AND, everyone who voted to keep the page was contacted and encouraged to change their vote.

Not understand that I don’t particularly give a poppycock whether the page stays or goes, but it should be done by the rules. When someone is so committed to fast-tracking a kangaroo kourt deletion that they lie, sock puppet, and break rules left and right then something is wrong with the picture.

I made a point on the discussion page. The attacker is misrepresenting all his or her opinions as fact and then disregarding the true facts because he/she doesn’t like them.

The wikipedia site is referenced. It points to documented sources. Good hard news sources.

The attackers seem to make up quotes and expect them to believed. The mention parts of articles and leave off the parts that they don’t like – you know, the parts with facts in them.

You have hundreds of thousands of sources stating Rikki Lee Travolta is John Travolta’s nephew. The attacker says none of them count because one article in the Chicago Sun Times stated he is not. In fact the Sun Times went back and corrected that statement, but the attacker leave that part out…just like the attacker leaves off that the article in question that they are claiming is the one true fact out of hundreds of thousands of counter-articles is all about the guy being the star of syndicated television series. Why leave that part out of the quote? Not because that part would make the guy notable – right? That would be unfair. That would be breaking the rules.

The attacker lists 2006 sales figures for a 2002 book Travolta wrote. In 2002 Amazon had it as a Top 25 recommendation. (I couldn’t find the Top 10 proof but there are were more than enough Top 25 references). In 2003 there was a New York Times Best Seller named “Dad, Dames, Demons and a Dwarf” by radio personality Mancow Muller. In 2006 it’s sales figures are a worse ranking than Travolta’s book. That doesn’t mean the books weren’t popular in their day.

I read all these comments. Every time someone voices a positive opinion, the attacker (or appropriate puppet) jumps in and bashes and trashes with no facts, just accusations and falsehoods.

Do you need to be told what your opinion is? I don’t.

Attack me. I don’t care. At least I can stand by my opinion and interpret facts without being swayed by bullying attacks.

Fact: 2 albums Fact: Nominated for Grammy Fact: Movie credits Fact: TV credits Fact: Ranked in top 5 in world as star of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat by Broadway World News Fact: Member of Travolta Family Fact: He wrote a novel that was really popular in its time. Fact: A movie company is making the book into a movie Fact: Was reported around the world as possible James Bond Fact: Check the current news and there’s articles about him. Fact: Google hits over 20,000

I don’t care what you decide. I don’t care how you vote. But the vote on facts, not how some joker wants to sway you to vote just to prove he or she knows more than you do. ~ Bostic5.0 05:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rikki_Lee_Travolta&oldid=47518002"