Talk:Paula Franzese

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 July 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Paula Franzese be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Photo needed

You -- yes you reading this -- do you have a photo of this person? If so, write something here on this page. Click the word Edit, above, type away, thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is an author photo of Professor Paula Franzese from her books, but I can't figure out how to upload it to Wikipedia.

Thanks for writing this. According to copyright rules, the photographer who took the photo owns the copyright, technically, and we need his/her permission, via email, to satisfy Wikimedia's rules. Or, if the subject, Paula Franzese, paid the photographer for the photo, or otherwise owns the copyright, then that would be suitable too. Or, if there is some photo of PF which is clearly specified in the public domain, that could work too. Do any of these conditions apply? Please remember to sign your posts with a --~~~~, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo still needed -- this is just procedure. If anybody reading this has a photo of PF, email me at thomaswrightsulcer (at) yahoo (dot) com with the photo, and have the email address of the photo's photographer who is willing to consent to publication -- those two things and I can get the photo in Wikipedia. OR, if PF owns the photo (ie paid for it, hired the photographer QED owns the 'rights' to the photo) then I'll need PF's email address.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professional page edits

(copied from my talk page:) Stop deleting my edits for Paula Franzese's page. The sources are reputable sources, and are not self-promotion because when someone wins an award, it becomes a fact that they have won an award. Many people have won an award, and such information becomes public knowledge as reported by verifiable journalistic websites. Also, do not touch the personal life section--you could have no knowledge of her personal life except through the source cited. There is no problem with the sourcing because they are verifiable links to websites where information can be found. Chesshti (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that in summer 2014, this article had been put up for deletion because it suffered from numerous issues. I revamped it, to try to get it to speed in terms of Wikipedia's rules, and I argued for it staying here in Wikipedia, and it stayed; I could make a reasonable argument that were it not for my efforts, this article would have been deleted. Again, now, I see efforts by well-meaning contributors who only seem to be editing this article (what Wikipedians call an 'SPA') who are not well-schooled in Wikipedia's guidelines and who are unknowingly adding material which may again cause the article to go back on the chopping block. It is important to note that Wikipedia has numerous guidelines about content; these rules work towards everybody's benefit since they can guide us into writing a quality encyclopedia. In many instances, contributors close to a subject are tempted to disregard the guidelines, to promote somebody close to them with glowing accounts like "Deeply committed to education reform and the public interest" and "She has pioneered the cause of law-related education and informed mentoring initiatives throughout the country as Past President of the Justice Resource Center" (source? Barnard College -- come on, a clear conflict of interest, since Franzese attended there), to consider unproven internet sources such as "sheknows media" as reliable and worthy of note, and adding the names of children, even their middle names (an exception possibly is Michael since he was named in the CBS source -- a reliable source); Wikipedia is not a CV or blog. I think it is time that this article get revamped once again.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on the edits. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.139.191 (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good way to find sources -- try one of these strings from my sandbox page. Paste this entire thing into your browser:

"Paula Franzese" (site:nytimes.com OR site:usatoday.com OR site:philadelphiainquirer.com OR site:time.com OR site:miamiherald.com OR site:pittsburghpostgazette.com OR site:chicagotribune.com OR site:latimes.com OR site:sfgate.com OR site:wsj.com OR site:mercurynews.com OR site:washingtonpost.com OR site:suntimes.com OR site:nj.com OR site:boston.com OR site:nydailynews.com OR site:denverpost.com OR site:npr.org OR site:baltimoresun.com OR site:csmonitor.com OR site:dailynews.com)

Usually reliable sources come out; sources like Barnard etc aren't really neutral, secondary, impartial, much better to get NY Times, NJ.com. Sources like sheknows media, well, not sure if that one is accepted yet by the Wikipedia community.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC) By the way, if any of you people know prof Franzese, tell her to give her middle schoolers the homework assignment of rewriting the US Constitution -- that should keep them busy, and of course, the right answer is here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tags removed

I have heavily edited this hot mess of an article. I believe that the issues with it are mostly resolved, so I have removed the tags that were placed on the article. Some parts of the article could still be better sourced than they are. SunCrow (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Paula-profile.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]