1674:
the article--and I have not made up my mind for sure about what I will do--I would like to know if the is an option for a "living persons" to delete their own article due to concerns about violation of privacy and other concerns. I would appreciate advise on this topic. I have tried to fix it so I can be emailed off my talk page, but it does not work. I did get as far as confirming the email address, but it never allowed the option to send an email on the page, so I don't know what is wrong or how to fix it and I don't want to publish my email address here because of robots and spam. But if you do want to email me about a deletion option privately, perhaps it is not appropriate to post it here, then please go to
508:: National Rampage Against Penthouse and Hustler begins. Organized by long-time feminist activist Nikki Craft in retaliation for the December 1984 issue of Penthouse magazine where Japanese women were shown tied up, hung from trees, with several appearing to be dead. Over 21 communities participated in almost 10 states. Hundreds of pornographic magazines were destroyed, resulting in over a hundred individual arrests and countless raised consciousnesses" Great I think, noteabilty. So I google "National Rampage Against Penthouse and Hustler", the noteable organization she organized and ggofle show one hit, this one! Is this site written by Nikki or a friend? I don't know. I'm still lacking a
934:
newspapers, television appearances, and recognition by major authors, along with the majority opinion of those who have voted, I would think that would be enough to confirm the appropriateness of having an article about the subject. I am beginning to wonder whether any amount or style of evidence will be satisfactory to you, and whether you have some personal bias which is causing you to resist the evidence so forcefully. If you respond to this I will appreciate your carefully replying to what was actually said, rather than what was not said, and that you do not make your case by ignoring what I have said. -
171:
needed to show that I challenged it by removing the order for deletion. Seemed reasonable at the time, but now I understand it was not appropriate and I want to apologize to y'all for doing so. I thought the entry had been made by automation somehow since it was unreadable codes. : ) Well you have to admit until you understand this process it can be pretty mystifying. Also, while I'm entering this I would like to clear up that I do not know the person who started this wikipedia entry, nor had I ever had any conversation with him at the time he started this page.
593:
1352:. I've just had to delete three identical (with slightly different titles) articles that were simply advertisements for this person's website. She is clearly a determined self-publicist, and this article is a straightforward example of that. As Skinwalker points out, Google hits are unreliable in such cases (she's tried to add at least four links to hereself on Knowledge, and who knows what she's done elsewhere? If she's so notable, let's delete this, and wait to see if anyone else starts a decent article about her.
925:
prove noteability! (Perhaps you will read them and tell us, and if you will not perhaps you will not seek to dismiss them.) Dandelion1 then provides more evidence of noteability, including a debate with Ed Lange on television, and you dismiss this as "testimont". Another user cites Craft's work as inspirational and you dismiss this as "Nikki is a nice person with a lot of friends, that doesn't make her noteworthy." WAS 4.250, the user never said that Craft was her
1668:
opened that was it and that is why I did not attempt to get it closed down, though that was certainly my first impulse. However, once it was opened I would not be willing to sit by and accept the article being shut down prematurely, or on false grounds in a way that negates three and a half decades of my work, as some here were attempting to do through misrepresentation of my work and my motivations which have been misconstrued.
1287:. Craft may be a net.kook and self-styled "activist", but she's definitely one of the more famous ones. She has definitely achieved "renown or notoriety" over a period of years. I disagree with pretty much everything she's done, especially her attacks on the naturist movement and on sexually-oriented media, and her tendency to find child molesters lurking in every shadow, but cannot contest her notability.
1026:
didn't spot the previously existing versions then he was acting in good faith. Speedy deletion requires two people (sometimes called "tag and bag") - the first person to nominate the article for speedy deletion, and then a second person to check that they too think it qualifies for speedy deletion. If both agree then it gets deleted, but like here, this was not the case and so it was not speedily deleted.
843:. Many noteable nudists and naturists are very familiar with Nikki's site and I think her critcism has been essential in leading to reform in the nudist/naturist community, which is still much needed to continue to provide for the safety of those who enjoy clothes free activities. I also believe her other activist work is highly noteable as well as a
1119:
thorough way. Too busy doing the activism and research. I'm doing so now at the request of those on this page who have asked me to do it. P.S. If it is not acceptable for me to enter this up here after the text I'm replying to and it should it go at the bottom of the section I will move it after I can find out. thanks for your patience. --
1682:
problem to link scanned articles that substantiate the content on the
Knowledge chronology then we can move them to another website other than my own. I don't care if the links are off my own website, just as long as the documentation is unrefutable. So anyone can let me know the preferred way of presenting that documentation. thanks,
317:) and it is both notable and true -- and Nikkicraft is not the only significant contributor if you look at the entire history. Considering all of the recent media attention, it should be no surprise that people are trying to correct their own articles. It is our job as Wikipedians to help them learn how we do things and offer advice.
1627:
that she has been so successful at self-promotion that the Nikki Craft penomenon is notable. There is a need to keep a continuing, strong eye on the article to ensure NPOV and verifiability and on related articles to keep at bay the tendency to promote the influence of her and her wesbites above that
1238:
Well, there has been a massive rewrite an only one call, early on, to delete. I think that the article is now solid: notable, supporting documentation, the works. If the person who had added the delete tag had done a little more homework, they might have used a milder tag. OTOH, the article is now
1214:
It was my vague impression that if AfD can be pulled by the orignal AfD'er. I mean, if someone stupidly put an AfD on one of the
Presidents of the USA, you would think that they could also pull their own tag and save the admins the trouble of having to do so for them. Also, the article has undergone
1190:
You are ready to conceed the point? Good. Do you know how to close this item out and properly remove the delete tag? You have to update the Talk page and logs also. It would be easier if you remove the tag ASAP. I can do that for you, if you like, but it is better if you do the tag. Let me know.
1137:'s publications. Thre is a lot of documentation about her in what amounts to old "newsletters" which are problematic for citations do we just have to do a better job at traditional scholarship. This woman is much more than just her own web site. Please give us time to line up better documentation.
964:
Thank you, Dandelion1, but I don't think mediation is warranted at this point, nor even possible for this particular kind of disagreement. We simply have a difference of opinion, and the way to express that difference in the context of an RfD is just to vote, which we have done. I am concerned that
561:
Site 9: The site is "The
Feminist Chronicles" a page listing notable events in feminism (from the pov of a feminist organisation) for 1990. It includes a two-line note of her protest over the Esquire magazine and subsequent arrest and 23 days in prison. Another source confirming what we already know,
1673:
Again, I appreciate very much
Dandelion respecting my work enough to start the article in the first place, and for all those who voted to keep the page and defending it staying here. It means more to me than I can say for a variety of reasons. However, now that I do know there is an option to delete
1030:
replaced the speedy deletion tag with a "proposed deletion" tag which is the relatively new halfway house between speedy deletion and AfD. This was disputed so I brought it here. Re the 10,000 google hits claim, this is not notable in and of itself - a very large number of those are for sites run by
1003:
tag I believe was not done in good faith and without regard to the noteability of the subject and the relevance of this article to others linked to it. He is clearly ignoring evidence. His actions are provoking endless debate that is not warranted given the sources provided here. How long to we have
924:
is needed, as though what I posted wasn't good enough or that you wilfully ignored it. (You said you didn't see the references in the post you were supposedly replying to, making me wonder whether you're really interested to see what's being presented.) You then questioned whether these references
549:
Site 6: This is about a small group (membership estimated at 15-30 women) at MIT in the mid 1980s, who demonstrated against violence against women. It mentions that the group "has arranged for groups to attend lectures and forums for such activists as
Catherine MacKinnon, Audre Lorde, Andrea Dworkin
537:
Site 4: This site also says (in the same bullet point): "Craft also founded The Kitty
Genovese Women's Project, which released a list of over two thousand men indicted for sex offenses against women in Dallas, Texas." Nothing I've found online seems to give any more information about this group than
1681:
Also, now that it has been established that the article will not be deleted there are many peripheral and inconsequential links that need to be deleted and were there only for the purpose of substantiating this "notability" requirement. Now that that is done they need to be removed. Also, if it's a
499:
that you provide and it mentions her in passing as having a useful web site "i recommend the websites set up by the activist Nikki Craft under various acronyms including Always
Causing Legal Unrest (ACLU), which are very high quality." Having websites for your causes does not make one noteable. The
1514:
is more broad than a lot of you realize. Nikki is a very important figure and its very hard for me to write articles about related subjects without her being part of a the discussion. She is way too important to leave out. There is no other major figure like her offering the type of criticism with
1357:
Did you fail to notice that somebody else DID start this article about her? She didn't start it herself. It's unfair for you to label her a self-publicist when she didn't start the article and has had only minimal input into it. Also, did you actually read the article, and if so, did you really
915:
WAS 4.250, I have to ask why you are trying so hard to ignore the evidence you claim you want? First you claim that you can't find anything notable about the subject, as though your own failure to find what is easy to find constitutes a lack of evidence. Then you claim the hits on Google for the
533:
Site 4: A "Timeline of the Sex
Industry in the United States". "1977 Women Armed For Self Protection is founded by long-time feminist activist Nikki Craft", Niki's Nostatusquo site seems to say this group's last action was in 1974? So I'm not enamoured with the reliablity of the site. A group that
170:
I feel it is important at this time for me to explain that I removed the text because I thought it was saying that unless the user
Nikkicraft thought the article was noteworthy, and if I did not directly challenge the request for deletion that the page woud be automatically deleted. So I thought I
1446:
Hi
Ciphergoth, You had initially called for the deletion of this page, then changed your vote. You had asked me for documentation, and I'm just now beginning to supply it and going to some effort to comply with your request. Maybe I don't understand, but are you now saying here that it's too much
1224:
The AfD can be "pulled" by the original nominator, but this normally only happens when there is a clear consensus that the article should not be deleted or if the nomination was made in error - this rarely happens after the first day or two and never when there are good-faith votes to delete. The
1025:
is noteable because of links to Nikki Craft's websites". Which was a fair reflection of the state of the article when it was nominated, the only clue that this wasn't vanity for someone who doesn't know the name is that the article existed previously in a more neutral form. If WAS 4.250, like me,
553:
Site 7: "But modern feminist figures like Dworkin, Nikki Craft, Melissa Farley, Susan Faludi-- their works & choice of words + issues harken back to the idea of women as OVEREMOTIONAL, VICTIMIZED, IN NEED OF PROTECTION , SENSITIVE, and most of all, DIFFERENT FROM MEN." This is from what is an
437:
You can say that as often as you like, if you're insistent on demonstrating your lack of competence in using Google. Though it looks more to me like you just dislike her politics and want Knowledge censored to remove references to somebody whose ideas you don't like, even though she's well known,
1667:
As I said earlier this article was started without my knowledge or permission. When I was asked to add content and documentation to the article by the person who started it, who I did not know at the time, I was not aware there was any option to delete this article. I thought once an article was
1527:
is written in English, Dandelion, and I know how to read. This page is about a 'writer', and yet there's not a single reference to a written work she's produced. It's a page about an 'activist', and there are no biographies written about this so-called notable activist. I've never seen such a
1118:
Rewrite? This page is only a few weeks old. There was apparently a premature call to quicky delete this page. People on this page requested substantiation. I have never been, hmm, let's say self-promoting enough to write a book about my work or even compile my "credentials" in a concentrated and
879:
this article deserves to stand based on the fact that she qualifies as a "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Your insistance on a trustworthy source for noteability is tiring. Policy also states "Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these
1586:
to add a link to one of her many websites whenever she is mentioned. I cannot believe, based upon the evidence presented, that this is anything other than an agressivly self-promoting individual leeching bandwidth, both in person and by proxy. An unfortunate feedback loop can occur, where the
557:
Site 8: Is an interview with Andrea Dworkin, one question is "I noticed your Web site was built by Nikki Craft, the radical feminist who was active in Santa Cruz during the mid-’80s? How did you two meet.". The publication is a newspaper in the Santa Cruz area. Undoubtedly the best of the sites
1177:
to understand that this is a dicussion in the form of a vote as opposed to an actual vote. The comments that make sense (are believed by the admins that delete or don't delete) are what count. The "voting" is not binding. What's best for wikipedia is what counts and thoughtful discussion takes
933:
was inspirational. That ought to give you some clue that the subject is recognized for the work which is the basis for the article. Incidentally, I know that Andrea Dworkin dedicated one of her books to the subject, though I don't know which one just yet. Between multiple articles in major
569:
deserve an article, but in a large part only because she is very good at self-promotion. It would be very easy to get the impression that she was the biggest thing to happen to femminism in the 20th century, wheras it appears she has just been a minor player in a lot of events. It is a very
916:
subject's name are self-promotion. WAS 4.250, there are *over 10,000* hits in Google, and the subject did not place most of them there. Then I post on the Talk page references to articles about the subject in the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News, and you immediately reply that
851:
in popular culture. I am really surprised a hand full of people would move so quickly armed with such incredible uninformed arguments to delete this article given the breadth of her work, the fact that she is so well known. The debates she has had on Jenny Jones with controversial figure
1204:
I think you maybe have a wrong impression. The tag's not going to get deleted until the AfD process is closed by an admin after the appropriate amount of time has expired. It looks like we can guess the likely result at this stage, but that doesn't mean we can close things early. —
232:. Almost all the google hits that I've been able to find have been from her own sites, of those that haven't many seem to be mirrors/copies of a few articles she's written. There are also hits for an artist/sculptor called Nikki ("Nikki's Craft") which are proving hard to filter out.
720:. Few volunteer activists have as much work or success under their belts as Nikki Craft. The article isn't vanity, the subject didn't start it, and there is no doubt that the subject is definitely noteworthy. I'll dig up some sources that verify her work and post to Talk. -
1133:: It is inconvenient for some of you that Nikki's notability peaked in the 70's and 80's before the advent of the Intternet. Only a certain amoun of that supporint documentatoin has found its way onto the Internet, but there is definitive documentation of her activities in
1174:
Voters feel misled at the end of a poll if the numerically superior option is not the one acted upon. "But it won the poll!" they claim, and not realizing that a poll is no substitute for consensus, are understandably upset, feeling that their voices have not been
983:
Though I agree with the thrust of your arguments, I definitely think the accusation of trolling is unwarranted. I definitely believe that WAS 4.250 is acting in good faith. As for your trust in the community, Michaelbluejay, note the number of changed votes... —
856:
are significant enough by themselves. If it wasn't for her work, thousands would laud Lange as a nudist hero without understanding the darker sides of the man, which must be noted. The influence she has had over several decades of much-needed activism cannot be
538:
this one action, that Nikki founded it and that Nikki is keen to mention she founded it. Again this appears to have happened in the 1970s so I'd be willing to concede it is underrepresented online. All in all, this doesn't on its own show she is notable enough.
1577:
This is currently a POV screed that makes an astonishing number of claims without a sources. While it appears that Craft does have some slight notability, this page already needs a massive clean-up, and I'm deeply concerned about how "linky" this article is:
1165:
Knowledge is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding
190:-- that is basically for nonsense like JOE SHMOE ROXXORS HE IS THE COOLEST KID IN SKOOL etc. -- and the Prod delete system specifically calls for moving articles here to AfD if there is any reasonable basis for discussion, which it appears that there is.
1004:
to keep responding to HIS denial of evidence? Is everybody who supports this article a "friend" of Nikki's to him? These kind of accusations are provoking an emotional response. Give me a break. My opinion stands. I believe his behavior is unwarranted.
270:. Nikki Craft is well known in the nudist/naturist communities because of her activism against and allegation concerning naturist activities. The bio article needs work (major work), but I think the subject is notable enough to keep around. As for
1239:
so much better that it was, for me, worth the crisis and an opportunity to be a hero to a lady that I have known of for almost 25 years but never just never happened to have contacted before. We talked for hours and hours as if we were old friends.
1553:) magazine. That makes her a writer as well as an activist. I don't understand why her website isn't considered a written work. Its very well known. What kind of web encyclopedia doesn't recognize web writers? Should web articles be ghettoized?
529:
Site 3: This is a speech given by Andrea Dworkin, and says "The full speech is also available on Nikki Craft's Andrea Dworkin tribute site", with no other mention of Niki. This link does not establish Niki's notability (its about Andrea, not
541:
Site 5: This is a scathing review by a feminist against pornography of a book that is pro pornography. Nikki's name is mentioned only once, when the reviewer lists 12 anti-pornography feminists (including herself) who the book's author
401:
As far as I can tell neither of those google hits points to a source we can use in a wikipedia biography of a living person according to the wikipedia policy on that topic. Therefore there is no source for any content that we can use!
900:. This site should not be deleted as her work for women's freedom has been tremendous and spans over three decades. She was inspirational to my work and her web work is a mere portion of her contribution to further human rights. --
1039:. As has also been established above, there are also a significant number of the rest that prove nothing other than Nikki runs the website about someone who is notable. I know someone who runs the most informative website about
671:
but I have vaguely heard of Always Creating Legal Unrest, and if someone can meet the challenge above to "find just one site we could use as a source for a living person that claims she is noteale" then I'll reverse my vote. —
219:
issues with this, and my gut feeling is that the assertions of notablity probably overstate Nikki's influence on them. If sources are provided that prove me wrong, and the article is made NPOV, then I will reconsider my vote.
554:
opinion piece (I'm not certain whether this is a blog-type site or something more notable) "The Trouble with Modern Feminist Spitfires". This is the best of the sites so far, but again it just mentions her in passing.
427:
Yes, you get a lot of hits; because she has a lot of self promotion on the web. Actually find just one site we could use as a source for a living person that claims she is noteable. I couldn't find one. Can you?
1318:(1997) (ISBN 0684835126), a collection of speeches and essays dedicated to Nikki Craft and Dworkin's late brother Mark. Craft is also mentioned in the acknowledgements of at least two of Dworkin's other books,
1085:(1997) (ISBN 0684835126), a collection of speeches and essays dedicated to Nikki Craft and Dworkin's late brother Mark. Craft is also mentioned in the acknowledgements of at least two of Dworkin's other books,
48:. Clearly such a long debate could call for a lengthy closure statement, but the fact that this debate is somewhere between a "no consensue" and a "keep" is plainly clear. It strikes me that noone has mention
974:
The fact that he is ignoring sources just seems to me to be a type of trolling behavior, he is just dragging this debate on way further than was needed to verify her noteability. But maybe I'm wrong.
372:
I looked in vain to try to find anything that would make Nikki craft noteable. I found lots of self promotion for herself and her cause, but nothing to indicate she could get arrested if she tried.
583:
Very thorough analysis. Still, I have to ask you a question. Is it better to leave someone in who doesn't quite reach Wiki standards of notability or to delete someone who just qualifies? --
1159:
What has been established is that we lack a consensus to delete, so the article will probably stay and its contents will have to be made to conform to the requirements of verifyability. See
735:
for the article, such as the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News. May I also point out that finding a bunch of inferior sources does not prove the non-existence of better sources. -
534:
existed only in the 1970s cannot really be fairly judged by online hits alone (imho), but what there are don't establish notability enough for me - other sources would need to be cited.
1178:
precedence over voting numbers. At wikipedia, its the evidence and arguments that represent consensus that count, not the raw voting numbers. So far there is no consensus to delete.
1150:
I think Craft's noteworthiness has already been firmly established. Those who dispute it will dispute it no matter how much evidence is presented. BTW, do anon votes count here? -
1056:, even when - especially when - you think others are stoking the fires. I think this debate is now very unlikely to be closed in favour of deletion, so you can afford to relax. —
1619:. I've read all of the debate here, and on talk, and while I am still not convinced she is as notable in her fields as some of the claims, I am very persuaded by the arguments of
1587:
initial numbe of google hits suckers us when looking for sources, and we feed the machine. None of these are reasons for deletion, however. Trim this back to the stub that is
1314:
above mentioned that "Incidentally, I know that Andrea Dworkin dedicated one of her books to the subject, though I don't know which one just yet." For reference, the book is
965:
WAS 4.250 may be biasing editors who aren't paying very close attention to what's actually being said, but I will try to trust the integrity of the community as a whole. -
438:
treated as notable in press and commentary, and her activities are often reported. Looks more like censorship and bad faith than any real question of notability.
1467:
so now her page is way longer than mine. : ) I hope that others who are editing feminists pages will get it all presentable with appropriate links. thanks. --
1447:
documentation? Too noteworthy? Or are you saying that Knowledge has not documented enough about other feminists yet? I would say it's probably the latter. --
1225:
only other times a discussion is closed early are if the article is speedy deleted (definately not applicable here), or the nomination was in bad faith. See
1457:
1438:
1628:
independently and neutrally observable and verifiable. Knowledge is not a vehicle to promote something or someone - we report on what is already notable.
1081:
above mentions "Incidentally, I know that Andrea Dworkin dedicated one of her books to the subject, though I don't know which one just yet." The book is
1263:: This is essentially a vanity page for a barely notable individual. Web hits are the result of aggressive self-promotion on the internet. Cheers,
115:(the only significant contributor to, and almost certainly the subject of the article). I am therefore nominating this here. (see below for my vote)
278:), this account should be forbidden from editing the bio article or posting links to the Craft related websites to avoid POV and self promotion. --
876:
422:
379:
364:
333:
282:
224:
1389:. This is really discouraging. This is at least the second time someone has admitted to not investigating the article's history. Come on guys.
1463:
Cool and you are totally right! Because of your post I just added a huge amount of material to the main page as well as the talk page for
835:
is absolutely critical in presenting major points of view on the subject of clothes free recreation, especially as it related to clubs and
901:
558:
presented so far, its pushing the notability of Nikki a bit higher, but again I would prefer a reference that actually deals with Nikki.
1215:
major changes during the AfD process, so maybe that is yet another case. If I am wrong that we can sew this thing up today, sorry! --
605:
Congratulations on finding the longest damn acronym I've ever seen in my life. Geez, and I thought the US Navy had some long ones. --
1579:
952:
881:
1160:
682:
Exactly. If such a site is found (that we can use that says she's noteable); then, by the definition of the terms, we keep it.
17:
1370:. Fair enough, I didn't check the article's history — I was depending too heavily on my experience of her recent behaviour. --
1599:. This is a person who's made a lifetime out of getting publicity, let us recall, so as to not be used for the same end. -
880:
categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." I would like to refer this matter to
811:
The New York Times is a trustworthy source. You have yet to demonstate that the New York Times claims she is noteable.
1043:- that does not make her notable. Please read and respond to the comments rather than making ad hominem accusations.
441:
154:
I have withdrawn my delete vote for now, but I remain undecided on her true notablity, so I may reinstate it later.
1275:
Three articles in New York Times in the 1980's TOPLESS BATHER ARRESTED IN CAPE COD PROTEST August 26, 1984, Sunday
453:
478:
Seconded. Thank you for this useful work, which has changed my vote; there was no need to be so rude about it. —
1702:
1605:
36:
592:
Generally it depends on whether there is enough verifiable information about them. But as a confirmed member of
1701:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1169:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1358:
come to the conclusion based on this person's history that her experience doesn't merit a Knowledge entry? -
1659:
1216:
1196:
1142:
827:
I started the article about Nikki Craft. Inclusion of Nikki Craft in constructive criticism of organized
596:
I'm going to give you a categoric answer. In this specific case, I honestly haven't made up my mind yet.
1244:
1226:
1686:
1662:
1650:
1632:
1611:
1557:
1541:
1519:
1502:
1471:
1451:
1421:
1409:
1393:
1381:
1362:
1342:
1330:
1303:
1291:
1279:
1267:
1247:
1233:
1219:
1209:
1199:
1182:
1154:
1145:
1123:
1097:
1060:
1047:
1008:
988:
978:
969:
959:
938:
910:
888:
870:
861:
815:
806:
797:
783:
774:
756:
739:
724:
712:
700:
686:
676:
662:
646:
609:
600:
587:
578:
524:
482:
473:
460:
432:
406:
396:
299:
256:
246:
236:
194:
175:
158:
149:
135:
58:
1624:
1600:
1375:
1264:
840:
606:
584:
470:
393:
296:
279:
275:
146:
1418:
520:. Don't give me nine bad ones. Is there a good one in the seven I didn't investigate? Point it out.
1359:
1311:
1151:
1078:
966:
944:
935:
803:
770:
and references cited. I've personally been familiar with Nikki Craft's work for several years now.
736:
721:
1572:
866:
Testimont is not needed nor useful. A trustworthy source that demonstates noteability is needed.
708:
references, along with my own vague memories, seem convincing to me. Though it needs NPOVing. —
501:
445:
252:
My mind is now made up - see the votes following rewrite section for my vote and its rationale.
1550:
1430:
319:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
385:
1535:
1496:
1406:
844:
767:
732:
496:
457:
439:
419:
191:
570:
borderline issue from what I've seen. These links do a significantly better job of proving
1683:
1647:
1554:
1516:
1468:
1448:
1434:
1390:
1371:
1206:
1120:
1057:
1018:
1005:
997:
985:
975:
956:
885:
858:
709:
697:
673:
479:
466:
455:
330:
310:
292:
271:
172:
128:
124:
112:
95:
80:
779:
Personal testimony is not useable on wikipedia because of the No original research rule.
186:
Nikkicraft, all your actions were completely proper. The article should never have been
1629:
1592:
1300:
1230:
1179:
1053:
1044:
948:
907:
867:
812:
780:
753:
683:
655:
643:
597:
575:
571:
521:
429:
403:
376:
346:
342:
253:
243:
233:
221:
216:
155:
142:
132:
116:
76:
49:
1595:, terminate with extreme prejudice anything that does not conform to the guideline on
550:
and Nikki Craft.". This does show some notability, but nowhere near enough on its own.
1591:, hunt out and remove all internal links that are inappropiate or give appearance of
1524:
1511:
1486:
1464:
1339:
1276:
1134:
1040:
1036:
1014:
562:
but providing less notablity (for me) than some others for being within the movement.
105:
1596:
1327:
1094:
771:
1429:: While I voted Keep, I can't believe this article is longer than the article on
1017:. When this article was nominated for speedy deletion the associated comment was "
1640:. Notable, verifiable, definitely worth an article out of hundreds of thousands.
131:
but failed to spot that this wasn't the only page of edit history. My apologies.
1588:
1529:
1490:
1338:
Subject seems notable enough, and as the article stands now it's worth keeping.
1032:
1022:
906:
Nikki is a nice person with a lot of friends, that doesn't make her noteworthy.
449:
84:
64:
53:
1641:
1027:
659:
324:
88:
447:
794:
443:
389:
1549:. Nikki Craft has written articles for Clothed with the Sun (now known as
512:. So instaed of researching the other seven, I put it to you: find me one
127:
is not the only significant contributor. I saw the screenfull of edits by
1620:
1288:
1191:
I am off-grid right now, so you can notify me at amorrow@earthlink.net.
853:
848:
828:
802:
Are the New York Times and Dallas Morning News not good enough for you? -
565:
Conclusion: These sites collectively say to me that Nikki possibly does,
1114:
NOTE: MASSIVE REWRITE STARTED AROUND THIS TIME: 20:44, 24 February 2006
1240:
1192:
1138:
451:
832:
1031:
Nikki, which cannot be used for external evidence of notablity per
546:
mention. Quite how this is meant to show notability I'm not sure.
1695:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
836:
793:
no notability established independantly of crafts own websites.
502:
http://www.prostitutionrecovery.org/prostitution_timeline.html
1675:
951:
is being unreasonable. I would like to refer this matter to
388:
turned up over 12,000 hits including sites such as MIT and
71:
Original nomination and comments re process and authorship
497:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw00/edited_transcript.html
87:
is noteable because of links to Nikki Craft's websites".
1405:
per notability eveidence submitted by previous posters.
204:
1608:
1571:
per notability evidence submitted by previous posters.
574:'s notability, she definately does deserve an article.
314:
288:
287:
For a less POV view of the subject, take a look at at
1515:
the kind of real results she has provided out there.
295:
started editing. Suggest rollback to this point. --
205:
Nominator's vote and following comments and evidence
1485:. Minor activist; no assertion that subject meets
487:Someone help me out here. I'm just looking foe ONE
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1110:Votes and comments following beginning of rewrite
309:This article existed for almost two weeks before
1705:). No further edits should be made to this page.
75:This was first nominated for speedy deletion by
500:nexy site of the nine you gave that I look up
145:) plan to maintain your "delete" vote below? --
8:
1299:I see no reasonable grounds for deletion. --
1678:and email me at the address on that page.
418:Just googling demonstrates notability.
877:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons
504:establishes she is noteable by saying "
1456:I am saying the latter, definitely! —
1433:and longer than the absent article on
696:per Monicasdude and references cited.
215:. I feel there are definate NPOV and
7:
748:Do any of these sources establish
731:Update: I added references to the
634:Other votes and comments following
24:
1580:Special:Whatlinkshere/Nikki_Craft
1528:clear example of a vanity page. -
847:activist and as someone fighting
993:His move to use hastily use the
953:Knowledge:Requests for mediation
882:Knowledge:Requests for mediation
1161:Knowledge:What Knowledge is not
123:: It has been pointed out that
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1322:(2000) (ISBN 0684836122), and
1089:(2000) (ISBN 0684836122), and
929:. The user said that Craft's
119:12:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
1:
1441:22:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
1422:00:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
1410:21:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1394:19:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1382:19:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1363:18:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1343:16:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1331:16:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1304:17:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
1292:02:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
1280:01:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
1268:00:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
1248:23:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
1234:23:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
1220:15:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
1210:11:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
1200:10:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
1183:04:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
1155:21:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
1146:20:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
1098:16:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1061:09:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
1048:09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
1009:09:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
989:09:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
979:09:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
970:08:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
960:08:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
939:08:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
911:07:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
889:08:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
871:07:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
862:03:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
816:07:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
807:01:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
798:23:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
784:07:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
775:21:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
757:07:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
740:23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
725:20:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
713:18:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
701:18:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
687:17:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
677:17:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
663:16:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
647:14:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
610:00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
601:23:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
588:23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
579:23:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
525:19:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
483:18:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
474:18:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
461:18:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
433:14:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
423:14:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
407:17:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
397:14:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
380:13:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
374:Not noteable. Not verifyable.
365:13:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
334:13:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
300:13:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
283:13:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
247:14:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
237:14:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
225:12:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
195:21:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
176:07:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
159:14:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
150:14:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
136:13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
44:The result of the debate was
291:of the article from before
1722:
1460:08:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1326:(2002) (ISBN 0465017541).
1093:(2002) (ISBN 0465017541).
594:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD
1687:22:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
1676:http://www.nikkicraft.com
1663:05:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
1651:23:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
1633:19:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
1612:23:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1558:23:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1542:16:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1520:04:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1503:04:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1472:09:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1452:02:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1124:02:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
257:19:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
111:tag. This was removed by
59:22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
1698:Please do not modify it.
1170:Knowledge:Voting is evil
392:regarding her arrest. --
242:no vote for the moment.
32:Please do not modify it.
495:. I look at the source
141:Based on this, do you (
1227:Knowledge:Speedy keep
841:The Naturist Society
1582:. It also appears
315:the article history
1551:Nude & Natural
642:the Nikki cruft.
79:with the comment "
1660:Joey Q. McCartney
1658:per Herostratus.
1431:Susan Brownmiller
1188:AAAAHHHH HHHAAAA!
1015:Assume Good Faith
943:I agree with you
516:that establishes
320:Assume good faith
57:
1713:
1700:
1646:
1610:
1603:
1538:
1532:
1499:
1493:
1378:
1002:
996:
845:topfree equality
362:
359:
356:
353:
329:
313:came along (see
110:
104:
100:
94:
56:
34:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1703:deletion review
1696:
1644:
1607:
1601:
1536:
1530:
1497:
1491:
1435:Sheila Jeffreys
1376:
1112:
1019:User:Nikkicraft
1000:
994:
636:
607:StuffOfInterest
585:StuffOfInterest
471:StuffOfInterest
394:StuffOfInterest
360:
357:
354:
351:
327:
311:User:Nikkicraft
297:StuffOfInterest
293:User:Nikkicraft
280:StuffOfInterest
272:User:Nikkicraft
207:
147:StuffOfInterest
129:User:Nikkicraft
125:user:Nikkicraft
113:user:Nikkicraft
108:
102:
98:
92:
81:User:Nikkicraft
73:
68:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1719:
1717:
1708:
1707:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1679:
1670:
1669:
1665:
1653:
1635:
1614:
1597:external links
1575:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1443:
1442:
1424:
1412:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1384:
1360:MichaelBluejay
1354:
1353:
1345:
1333:
1316:Life and Death
1312:Michaelbluejay
1306:
1294:
1282:
1270:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1236:
1217:68.122.118.161
1212:
1197:68.122.118.161
1185:
1152:MichaelBluejay
1143:216.31.255.130
1127:
1126:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1083:Life and Death
1079:Michaelbluejay
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1050:
967:MichaelBluejay
945:MichaelBluejay
936:MichaelBluejay
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
804:MichaelBluejay
788:
787:
786:
761:
760:
759:
743:
742:
737:MichaelBluejay
728:
727:
722:MichaelBluejay
715:
703:
691:
690:
689:
665:
656:User:WAS 4.250
649:
635:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
572:Andrea Dworkin
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
539:
535:
531:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
367:
347:Andrew Lenahan
336:
304:
303:
302:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
206:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
197:
179:
178:
164:
163:
162:
161:
72:
69:
67:
62:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1718:
1706:
1704:
1699:
1693:
1692:
1688:
1685:
1680:
1677:
1672:
1671:
1666:
1664:
1661:
1657:
1654:
1652:
1649:
1643:
1639:
1636:
1634:
1631:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1615:
1613:
1609:
1606:
1604:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1585:
1581:
1576:
1574:
1573:wikipediatrix
1570:
1567:
1559:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1539:
1533:
1526:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1518:
1513:
1509:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1500:
1494:
1488:
1484:
1481:
1480:
1473:
1470:
1466:
1465:Diana Russell
1462:
1461:
1459:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1450:
1445:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1423:
1420:
1417:: noteable --
1416:
1413:
1411:
1408:
1404:
1401:
1400:
1395:
1392:
1388:
1385:
1383:
1379:
1373:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1361:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1350:
1346:
1344:
1341:
1337:
1334:
1332:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1310:
1307:
1305:
1302:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1290:
1286:
1283:
1281:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1269:
1266:
1262:
1259:
1249:
1246:
1245:71.141.235.70
1242:
1237:
1235:
1232:
1228:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1218:
1213:
1211:
1208:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1198:
1194:
1189:
1186:
1184:
1181:
1176:
1171:
1167:
1162:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1153:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1135:Lee Baxandall
1132:
1129:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1109:
1099:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1062:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1049:
1046:
1042:
1041:Tony Robinson
1038:
1034:
1029:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1007:
999:
992:
991:
990:
987:
982:
981:
980:
977:
973:
972:
971:
968:
963:
962:
961:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
941:
940:
937:
932:
928:
923:
919:
914:
913:
912:
909:
905:
904:
903:
902:63.249.106.83
899:
896:
890:
887:
883:
878:
874:
873:
872:
869:
865:
864:
863:
860:
855:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
823:
817:
814:
810:
809:
808:
805:
801:
800:
799:
796:
792:
789:
785:
782:
778:
777:
776:
773:
769:
765:
762:
758:
755:
751:
747:
746:
745:
744:
741:
738:
734:
730:
729:
726:
723:
719:
716:
714:
711:
707:
704:
702:
699:
695:
692:
688:
685:
681:
680:
679:
678:
675:
670:
666:
664:
661:
657:
653:
650:
648:
645:
641:
638:
637:
633:
611:
608:
604:
603:
602:
599:
595:
591:
590:
589:
586:
582:
581:
580:
577:
573:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
545:
540:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
498:
494:
491:establishing
490:
486:
485:
484:
481:
477:
476:
475:
472:
468:
464:
463:
462:
459:
456:
454:
452:
450:
448:
446:
444:
442:
440:
436:
435:
434:
431:
426:
425:
424:
421:
417:
416:Obvious Keep.
414:
408:
405:
400:
399:
398:
395:
391:
387:
386:Google search
384:Umm, a quick
383:
382:
381:
378:
375:
371:
368:
366:
363:
348:
344:
340:
337:
335:
332:
326:
323:
321:
316:
312:
308:
305:
301:
298:
294:
290:
286:
285:
284:
281:
277:
273:
269:
266:
258:
255:
251:
250:
249:
248:
245:
240:
239:
238:
235:
231:
228:
227:
226:
223:
218:
214:
213:
209:
208:
196:
193:
189:
185:
184:
183:
182:
181:
180:
177:
174:
169:
166:
165:
160:
157:
153:
152:
151:
148:
144:
140:
139:
138:
137:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
107:
97:
91:replaced the
90:
86:
82:
78:
70:
66:
63:
61:
60:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1697:
1694:
1655:
1637:
1616:
1593:undue weight
1583:
1568:
1546:
1507:
1482:
1426:
1414:
1402:
1386:
1367:
1348:
1347:
1335:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1308:
1296:
1284:
1272:
1260:
1187:
1173:
1164:
1130:
1113:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1075:
947:, I believe
930:
926:
921:
918:VERIFICATION
917:
897:
824:
790:
763:
749:
717:
705:
693:
668:
667:
651:
639:
566:
543:
517:
513:
509:
505:
492:
488:
415:
373:
369:
350:
338:
318:
306:
267:
241:
229:
211:
210:
187:
167:
120:
74:
46:NO CONSENSUS
45:
43:
31:
28:
1638:Strong Keep
1407:Herostratus
1273:Strong keep
1023:Nikki Craft
825:Strong keep
768:Monicasdude
764:Strong keep
750:noteability
518:noteability
510:good source
493:noteability
489:good source
458:Monicasdude
420:Monicasdude
192:Herostratus
101:tag with a
85:Nikki Craft
65:Nikki Craft
52:, though. -
1684:Nikkicraft
1589:verifiable
1584:de rigueur
1555:Dandelion1
1517:Dandelion1
1510:. I think
1469:Nikkicraft
1458:ciphergoth
1449:Nikkicraft
1439:ciphergoth
1391:Dandelion1
1377:Μελ Ετητης
1372:Mel Etitis
1324:Heartbreak
1265:Skinwalker
1207:ciphergoth
1121:Nikkicraft
1091:Heartbreak
1058:ciphergoth
1006:Dandelion1
986:ciphergoth
976:Dandelion1
957:Dandelion1
886:Dandelion1
859:Dandelion1
710:ciphergoth
698:Kestenbaum
674:ciphergoth
480:ciphergoth
173:Nikkicraft
121:LATER NOTE
1630:Thryduulf
1625:Brenneman
1617:weak keep
1602:brenneman
1419:FlareNUKE
1320:Scapegoat
1301:SpencerTC
1231:Thryduulf
1180:WAS 4.250
1087:Scapegoat
1045:Thryduulf
949:WAS 4.250
908:WAS 4.250
868:WAS 4.250
813:WAS 4.250
781:WAS 4.250
754:WAS 4.250
733:talk page
684:WAS 4.250
644:Defunkier
598:Thryduulf
576:Thryduulf
522:WAS 4.250
514:good site
430:WAS 4.250
404:WAS 4.250
377:WAS 4.250
343:Thryduulf
289:a version
254:Thryduulf
244:Thryduulf
234:Thryduulf
222:Thryduulf
156:Thryduulf
143:Thryduulf
133:Thryduulf
117:Thryduulf
77:WAS 4.250
1340:Edgar181
1309:Comment:
1277:FloNight
1172:to read
1163:to read
1076:Comment:
1052:Keep it
922:evidence
857:ignored.
854:Ed Lange
849:misogyny
829:naturism
544:does not
467:WP:CIVIL
465:Please,
390:this one
188:speedied
1547:Comment
1508:Comment
1427:Comment
1387:Comment
1328:Radgeek
1095:Radgeek
1054:WP:COOL
1013:Please
772:Radgeek
530:Nikki).
230:comment
217:WP:VAIN
168:Comment
50:WP:AUTO
1648:Брайен
1531:ikkyu2
1525:WP:BIO
1512:WP:BIO
1492:ikkyu2
1487:WP:BIO
1483:Delete
1437:... —
1349:Delete
1261:Delete
1175:heard.
1037:WP:NOR
998:delete
927:friend
833:nudism
791:Delete
766:, per
669:Delete
652:Delete
640:Delete
370:Delete
339:Delete
331:Брайен
212:Delete
96:delete
54:Splash
1642:BCorr
1166:votes
1028:Quarl
1021:says
660:Aaron
325:BCorr
307:Keep.
89:Quarl
83:says
16:<
1656:Keep
1623:and
1569:Keep
1537:talk
1498:talk
1489:. -
1415:Keep
1403:Keep
1368:Keep
1336:Keep
1297:Keep
1285:Keep
1168:and
1131:Keep
1035:and
1033:WP:V
931:work
920:and
898:Keep
875:Per
839:and
837:AANR
831:and
795:Jcuk
718:Keep
706:Keep
694:Keep
658:. --
654:per
567:just
506:1984
469:. --
341:per
268:Keep
106:prod
1621:MCB
1289:MCB
1243:--
1241:AWM
1195:--
1193:AWM
1141:--
1139:AWM
358:bli
1540:)
1501:)
1380:)
1229:.
1001:}}
995:{{
752:?
361:nd
355:ar
352:St
349:-
345:.
109:}}
103:{{
99:}}
93:{{
1645:|
1534:(
1495:(
1374:(
955:.
884:.
328:|
322:!
276:T
274:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.