I'm going to copy the article here, just so we're all on the same page in case it was deleted or edited or something:
---- '''Jellica Marie Mateo''' (Born April 10, 1983) also known as '''"Jeli"''', is a [[Philippine Idol]] Finalist for the show's first season.
She is a lounge singer by profession doing part-time modeling and hosting as side jobs after her schooling in [[University of Asia and the Pacific]].
Some of her musical influences include [[Ray Charles]], [[Diana Krall]], and [[Michael Bolton]] among others. ----
Reading this and reading your analysis it seems to me that you are talking about a completely different article.
On 11/9/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Because a verifiable stub isn't worth it?
I did not say that. The point is, it is NOT verifiable.
It all seems verifiable to me, save perhaps for a clarification that *she says* that her musical influences include...
Now there aren't any sources listed, and that's certainly a problem, but it doesn't seem an insurmountable one assuming the information is in fact true.
It is likely a copyvio,
This part makes me think that the version I'm looking has been altered. Because there is no image in the version I see (not even a link to a deleted one), and the text is all pretty much factual and non-copyrightable. But the version I see is from 16:01, 27 September 2006, which leads me to believe it is the original version.
Icidently, the first two paragraphs of [[Philippine Idol]] are likely plagiarized from http://www.philippineidol.org/about.html (I say likely, because possibly they plagiarized from Wikipedia).
and the amount of information known about this woman from reliable third party sources is about as close to zero as you can get.
You could certainly get a lot closer to zero. But admittedly the amount of information is likely to be small.
Not that I think that in itself is a reason for deletion. I don't have a problem with short articles.
It was written by someone who appears to have a serious problem with respect to uploading copyvio images and claiming he took them. I see no reason to trust anything about the article at all.
Googling her name brings up a few blogs which seem to present similar information. So that's a reason to trust some of it.
In the meantime, we have an article that is most likely a copyvio, and in any event contains a number of totally unverifiable sources.
The version I see doesn't have any sources at all.
And any movement to do something about this sort of nonsense is met with the view that people are out to censor pop culture or something like that.
{{citequote}}
Who has that view? It seems like a minority view at best.
Anthony