From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. |
| Stub |
This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
[edit] Demotion to senior airman?
Someone demoted her from staff sergeant to senior airman. Without providing a single source or citation. Please add a source so this can be verified! After all, if she was officially demoted, her demotion is a new factor in this tale which should be handled in full in the article. -- fdewaele, 15 Februari 2007, 14:33.
Here's a BBC source http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6364585.stm 88.154.194.140 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Clarification on Notability
Wikipedia policies state that someone must be notable to have an article...and that notability is not temporary. In 3 years will Michelle be notable? Notice that the other two women do not have articles and their circumstances are similar. -- Tony of Race to the Right 14:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with that assertion, though more on I'm not sure the page really requires such indepth information and linking. Unless she goes onto a serious career in modeling or some such, and establishes her fame on a more permenant basis, this is just 5 minutes of fame. Maybe not even that. Their are some meaningful but obscure politicians, educators, and heroes that don't have pages of this length relative to what they actually did. Even if it stays for now what more needs to be said then she was in the military, she posed nude next to pics of her in uniform in the same spread which violates the UCMJ (which courts have upheld), and she got demoted for it. Then requested an honorable discharge which she was given (Air Force times article this last week or two). Is she really 'famous' enough to warrant whole sections on her uneventful past and unimportant family? At least in the grand scheme of an encyclopedia? Their are some small encyclopedias which don't even mention how many kids someone like Abe Lincoln has in them. The fact is this page could be half a normal size paragraph long and contain all important details. Just because you CAN dig up more info doesn't mean you SHOULD or that it is appropriate to the sites goals. Remember if she DOES get established fame you can always up date later, but your shouldn't start with giant full source articles on the assumption someone might be the exception to the rule that news these days is forgotten a week later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Deserving of her own page?
Given her only reason for being here is violating the UCMJ and getting dinged for it... not exactly a feat she holds the only recorded instance in... might it be more appropriate to mention her under the UCMJ article with a sentance or two? In continuation of the above, at least unless she actually establishes herself as someone more meaningful to the world? If getting caught on a slow news week and being hot is the only requirement for your own page now on Wikipedia that's a step away from a credible encyclopedia and towards being a tabloid.
- There has been an AfD, the result was Keep. You can check the discussion. Now if you want to do a second AfD, it's up to you. Hektor 12:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Although this short after the closing of the AfD, no second AfD should be held. One should respect the democratically made decision and not try to subvert it be quickly organizing a revote. -- fdewaele, 11 April 2007, 14:38.
- Considering the dates on the references seem to be January, February, and March, she must have been "caught" on a slow news three months.... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
