Talk:Annabeth Robinson

New article

I am a student at the University of hull and for a project we are doing I will be creating a page on this shortly.--Vickxi (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Annabeth Robinson is a multi-media artist and lecturer based in Leeds. --cmchristmas (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

References, references...

WP:RS and WP:GNG for starters. Whatever your project is, you are subject to Wikipedia's rules here, not those of your tutor or whoever suggested this. Read those policies, and contact me if you have queries. Peridon (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have created a page on Annabeth Robinson(Before I was aware the above people were about to do it) Im also a student at the University of Hull and have been asked to choose a practitioner to put on the website and thus is for academic purposes and the biography will be adjusted and expanded on shortly (JR (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JReeve89 (talk • contribs)

Hold on! Are you saying that you were given the task of adding articles to Wikipedia as your homework/project by a college. This probably violates a ton of Wikipedia policies. Please can you tell us who asked you to do this as somebody probably need to have a word with them? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've come across a few cases where people claim to have been told to put pages up as part of projects. Can't quote chapter and verse, sorry - too many edits... Peridon (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It certainly seems to violate the meatpuppetry rule but I feel sorry for the students if they are only doing what they were told to do. Anyway, I suggest we move discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Adding biographies as homework? in case this page gets deleted. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Hello people of Wikipedia! I have a quick question. I am trying to reference something I saw in Second Life in reference to Annabeth Robinson. How do I go about doing that? My guess is a web source but just wanted to make sure! Also, this will be needed for my new piece of written work in here so please don't delete it! Muchos gracias and I look forward to hearing from you soon Katie.lydon (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

While I think notability is highly questionable, she does get 7 Google Scholar hits and that seems to be enough to preclude speedy deletion. I think this one may well end up at AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

These links might be helpful for finding sources:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note: I see more Google Scholar hits for AngryBeth Shortbread than for Annabeth Robinson. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Status and Advice

Academic assignments to add articles to Wikipedia are fully accepted here, and can be excellent things. There are even such project sponsored by the foundation, and many universities and schools have participated. I do not see how this can in any sense by called meatpuppetry. for a description of some of what we do here, see Wikipedia:School and university projects and WP:Schools FAQ .

In general I regard biographies as exactly the right type of articles to begin with. I've advised several projects of this sort, and that's what I always suggest, either for a short project by itself, of as an initial exercise. Naturally, the students need advice, and that's why we have projects to help them and their instructors. The obvious advice is to start with subjects who are very surely notable , and to collect sources first, before actually writing. It is not at all difficult to teach the mechanics of editing Wikipedia, The judgement for selecting article topics can be substantially more difficult, and I--and many experienced editors--am very ready to take a look at prospective topics and make suggestions. I commend any teacher who decides to do such a project, but suggest that they ask for some guidance--and ask first, before the students run into difficulties. Please ask your teacher to get in touch with me or--even better any of the UK wikipedians. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was not aware of that we cooperated with projects of this kind. Now that you explain it, I can see how they can yield useful articles provided the project is structured properly. I still have some concern about this particular project given that the first anybody knew about it was when a group of students turned up confused about why an article was being considered for deletion (thus confusing me in turn). If it is possible to get this sorted out so that the students have the support and guidance they need then that is great and I hope that we can get some good articles out of this after all. I hope I haven't frightened anybody off. I will drop them each a message. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy declined

In view of the above I have declined the speedy nomination (though not criticising the nominator - it was a reasonable A7 nomination), and explained about notability on the author's talk page. JohnCD (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Please read WP:RS to see what sorts of references are good and what are not. Linkedin is no good at all. Please replace the Linkedin references with reliable, independent references. Books and other scholarly references are best. News coverage is also OK. Blogs and self published material is no good. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi DanielRigal, does this mean that blogs published by certain organisations are not certified material? For example, if User:Katie.lydon and I were to use the Live Art Development Agency's blog to back up information on artist, this would be no good? Because obviously the LADA carries a lot of weight as the organisation which is at the forefront of curating new artistic work within the UK.

--FrederickJPorteer (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Blogs and user-submitted websites are, in general, not acceptable as reliable sources for establishing notability on Wikipedia. One exception might be an official newspaper blog of a professional journalist which functions as an online extension of the paper, and is under professional editorial control. Otherwise, no. We need independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Even f the blog is making a valuable and independent statement about something else? LADA and other such organisations encourage and document the creation of Live Art. It's Basically the authority within the UK on these things. FrederickJPorter (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can produce an independent, reliable source that says this blog is "basically the authority within the UK on these things", and the blog is under professional editorial control, then maybe. At that point, it would no longer be what's commonly called a "blog", would it? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I suppose that's the grey area in these things. Is the article more reputable now I've taken all the primary sources away now, do you think? FrederickJPorter (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

More hints

Hi everybody. Please bear the following in mind:

• This is an encyclopaedia and we have an encyclopaedic style. Please refer to people by their surnames and keep a neutral tone.
• Again, genuine independent references are not optional. The list of works will get deleted unless it is referenced properly. You can't keep referencing everything to annamorphic.co.uk. This just makes her look less notable than she is. Come on; She gets hits in Google Scholar. Use them!
• Less is sometimes more. We don't need to cover things in a level of detail appropriate to a fansite or a CV.
• Prose is often better than lists.

--DanielRigal (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, far too much referenced to YouTube. Can we have some solid biographical data instead? You know, place and date of birth, that sort of thing? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Stub time

It seems that the original authors have gone and nobody was very keen on the article at AfD. Nobody objected to my suggestion that we stub it so I will be gutting out all the trivia and unverifiable material. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Re-starting production of work on this page.

Hi there guys. I'd just like to introduce myself and my colleague, User:Katie.lydon who will be working on improving and expanding this page. We, like vicki, are doing this for a class. However, we hope to make a much better job of it and create an article that is going to stay.

We're new users so any help would be appreciated. For the past week we have been researching and editing the article in our sandboxes. Hopefully we can give Annabeth Robinson the page that she deserves. --FrederickJPorter (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Freddie! I just put this in my sandbox and wondered if you thought it was relevant. I know it's not referenced properly yet, I thought I'd do that after just in case you thought it wasn't relevant!

'The avatar that had gathered information could return to the gallery space to witness the transformation inspired by the journey. “Visitors moving through the gallery space, over, under and within its formal-textural construct, make critical connections between in-world conditions and deep structures of disparate SL environments that are represented,” writes Kligerman. (Artist Annabeth Robinson [known as AngryBeth Shortbread in Second Life] has recently focused on the role of the avatar in influencing surrounding space as well, by reading the key or unique ID number associated with each avatar. She is currently working on musical instruments that incorporate avatar information in the creation of chords that when combined make music)

Summer conference 2008 NMC Summmer conference at Princeton University. Sparking Innovative Learning and Creativity. Infrastructures in Virtual Learning

Holly Willis | University of Southern California.' --Katie.lydon (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Who the heck is "Kligerman" and why should any Wikipedia editor pay any attention to what he/she says? We need solid references here.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Friend! That looks good, we will have to chop it down a bit as it's a bit long. I'm having a bit of luck finding stuff on google scholar. Just reading about her whiteboard and her new 'handsUp' chair that she created. Really done a lot. It's a wonder how her notability was questioned.--FrederickJPorter (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Freddie! Just working on the page, just added a new section and attempted to use the referencing system! It should be right just give it a once over and see if what I've done is all correctomundo! Katie.lydon (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Did some more if you wanted to check it :) I just wanna make sure it's all correct and I won't lose us marks/respect! Katie.lydon (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about Referencing

Hello people of Wikipedia! I have a quick question. I am trying to reference something I saw in Second Life in reference to Annabeth Robinson. How do I go about doing that? My guess is a web source but just wanted to make sure! Also, this will be needed for my new piece of written work in here so please don't delete it! Muchos gracias and I look forward to hearing from you soon Katie.lydon (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Katie. It looks like nobody will come to our aid. So I would just reference the web if I were you! It technically is a website anyway. So just go for it! FrederickJPorter (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers babe, done just that :) Lets hope it's right! Katie.lydon (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The exact formatting of the references is far less important than the quality of the references that are being put forward to establish the WP:notability of this person. We need significant coverage of her in several reliable, independent sources. Self published sources, blog posts and the like are of no value in establishing notability on Wikipedia. So, my challenge to the authors is to explain why is this person is notable by Wikipedia standards? If you can't, then the article needs to be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cullen! Finally, some feedback on the page! Ok, so the issue is that our references are not reliable enough? So the best course of action would be to remove those which aren't reliable as well as the points that they make and try and find more reliable sources, yes? I believe that the tools she has created which are referenced by quality, reputable sources prove her notability so I think that is a moot point. Her notability was questioned before, when this article was a stub, and the decision was made that she should be kept. Now, with more information here, I think that that on those grounds the article should be kept. With reference to the Performances and Installations sections, do you believe that it would be better that I take out the descriptive text and instead make it into a list? I'm really busy up until this weekend, is there enough time for me to leave it until then. I really would like this article to stay because I have put a lot of effort into it. Thankyou for taking the time to leave some feedback here! Look forward to working with you on this! edit: I also said in my presentation that I hoped the orange banner would ne'er return! But there the bastard is again! Right, I'll get working on this asap! FrederickJPorter (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I will try my best to be clear without being rude. The article now has 35 references, and it it my belief that almost all of them are worthless as reliable, independent sources by Wikipedia standards. However, I haven't studied each one in detail, because I don't have the time. It is not an issue of more sources, but rather an issue of high quality sources. Three high quality sources are infinitely better here than 40 mediocre sources. There is no previous decision that stands forever on Wikipedia. Maybe other editors moved on to other things. I don't know. What I ask of you is to identify your three best reliable, independent sources that show this person's notability by Wikipedia standards. Study the notability standards thoroughly before you answer my question. Then, I will review those sources and let you know what I think. Give it your best shot. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I will get on to this this weekend! Thanks again for the help. It's really valuable to me and I'd like to become a good contributor to Wikipedia. FrederickJPorter (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am very happy to read your most recent comment, Frederick. Please feel free to approach me on my talk page at any time for my views on editing Wikipedia. There are plenty of other editors who will be happy to help as well, because I don't claim to have all the answers. The project is far too complex for anyone to know everything. But I think that I know a little bit about some of the most important things. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability

So I've read the notability guidelines and I have to admit that according to them, Robinson might indeed not be notable enough to be on Wikipedia. It'd be a shame to see the article go. I have wittled down the references just six. Three of which give moderate coverage of Robinson and the other three which give very little coverage.

I'm not sure whether this is enough for the article's subject to be considered notable. Obviously for me, and the people studying my course, she's incredibly notable. But wikipedia's standards are much more stringent.

So, let the discussion commence over whether she should be kept.

Also, other issues I think have been fixed, let me know what you all think on that side.

FrederickJPorter (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

At first glance, the article seems much improved. I will give it a more in-depth review later. I have my doubts about notability, but will wait to hear what other editors think. As for me, I really appreciate you taking my concerns seriously. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that's something at least. I also (now) have my doubts about notability. I think she might just be notable enough, but of course that is subject to debate! In reference to taking your concerns seriously, I'm just glad that I was able to interact with other wikipedians. User:Katie.lydon and I felt as though it was a shame that none of our work was being moderated in the way it was for last years students. So in the same respect, thanks for taking us seriously and not just dismissing us as silly students. FrederickJPorter (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite interested to know what people think about this article and the improvements made. I'm gonna put a tag here so that people will start visiting the page and I can get help deciding if I should keep this page. I really want to know whether the page will be kept or not and whether I can still improve it because it is playing on my mind that it's not properly finished. Thanks FrederickJPorter (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion closed on 19 November and the decision was to keep the article, so that means the community has decided this article passes the notability guidelines. You are free to improve the article.--v/r - TP 01:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Best sources

Frederick, what do think are the two or three best reliable, independent sources that give her significant coverage? A careful reading of those sources determines whether she is notable by Wikipedia standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annabeth Robinson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314132654/http://www.open.ac.uk/cetl-workspace/cetlcontent/documents/48845a25f07ab.pdf to http://www.open.ac.uk/cetl-workspace/cetlcontent/documents/48845a25f07ab.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)