Talk:Vi Daley

Notability

This article has been renominated for deletion. The topic is not notable. The sources are unreliable. It is blatant political advertising with a point of view written by a political supporter. A link is provided to Vi Daley's own web site. It was previously voted for deletion for good reason. It is completely slanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.3.8 (talk • contribs) 15:30, December 27, 2007

Actually, this article has previuously been deleted twice -the second time speedily without discussion since it reappeared during Vi Daley's re-election campaign last year and was full of propoganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.3.8 (talk • contribs) 15:49, December 27, 2007

Actually you just copy & pasted the 2005 deletion debate here. That doesn't count as an AFD nomination. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 01:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This article does not in any way resemble the article that was deleted in the sense that it uses well-sourced statements to establish claims. There are recent editors who have tried to change the text surrounding the references so it can be AFDed. I think as long as we keep reverting the malicious attempt, we will be able to keep it from being deleted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? 40% of the "sources" are the Chicago Reader. Thanks for enlightening us TonyTheTiger. Now why don't you reveal your connections to Vi Daley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.3.8 (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I have no connection with Vi Daley and had not even heard of her before, but the proposal for deletion seems completely inappropriate. If 40 of 50 Chicago aldermen have article on Wikipedia, there is no basis to single out this page for deletion. I have done some copy-editing to clean up the article and to remove one reference to her being known "throughout the country" on an issue. But other than that the article appears to be relatively balanced and and lacking in point of view. If anything, the comments by the anonymous user proposing deletion (both on this talk page and on the user talk page) appear to reflect a strong anti-Vi Daley point of view(e.g., referring to the subject as a "2 bit, municipal pol"). I note also that the only contributions ever made by that anonymous user are negative comments about Vi Daley and the Vi Daley article. If that user has legitimate facts to add to the article, backed by reliable sources, to back up what he believes is the "real" Vi Daley, then improving the article, rather than deleting it, is the correct course of action.Cbl62 (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is just one example of a misleading statement. "She was elected in 1999 to replace Alderman Charles Bernardini,..." This is false. In 1999, she was elected to replace herself. In this, her first, election, she ran as an incumbent after having been previously appointed to the job by the mayor. Anyone who thinks this is insignificant knows nothing about Chicago politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.3.8 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's another example of subtle yet significant slant. Nearly a full paragraph, which is probably 15-20% of the article, is devoted to discussion of the proposed big box ordinance. The suggestion is that it was the primary reason she came close to losing the election. The truth is that in Vi Daley's ward, it was a complete non-issue. There were no proposals to build any big boxes in the ward, and it is a white collar ward with few union members. Vi Daley nearly lost her job due to high levels of discontent over a host of other issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.3.8 (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your primary basis for deletion of this article seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Since you claim to be an expert on Chicago politics, why don't you start putting forward references to back up these "facts" that you keep bandying about and seem to have exclusive access to? We have yet to see proof of all these statements that you claim are factual. Since you are the one who is having issues with this article, the burden of proof is on you to produce evidence that the information within this article is wrong and that all these "facts" that you claim to be true are more than rants motivated by an extremely anti-Vi Daley bias. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't me that had anything to do with Vi Daley's article being deleted twice previously. Common sense tells you that low level politicians are going to attempt to use this venue for political advertising. Common sense tells you that the content is going to be suspect. The fact that 39 other Chicago aldermen are also getting away with it is weak justicification for its continued existence. It's simply not notable. Shouldn't a topic that's already been deleted for non-notability have to go through a review process before getting undeleted? You can verify that Vi Daley ran as an incumbent in 1999 on the Cook County Board of Elections web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.3.8 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you add the fact to the article with a proper ref then?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the articles that currently exist on the 40 aldermen who have them. Five are very short (Bob Fioretti, Michael Zalewski, Ariel Reboyras, Carrie Austin, Patrick Levar). Several others are rated stub but are slightly longer, while the rest have a decent amount of content. This is one of them. It does not appear biased one way or the other in reading through it. I also found a discussion involving notability of local politicians that occurred nearly 3 years ago now. No consensus was reached.

As to notability, take a look at Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies#Basic_criteria and the additional criteria, which also deals with politicians. The Vi Daley article now seems to pass the criteria for notability here even if she doesn't pass yours. It was nominated in 2005 for deletion because it was just one sentence. However TonyTheTiger has since then gone in and put together a more substantial, referenced version. Just because an article was deleted or merged before does not mean it has to stay that way if it is recreated properly later.

69.211.3.8, if you think this and the 39 other articles on Chicago aldermen are non-notable, why don't you go through the proper channels here and nominate all of them for deletion instead of just focusing on this particular one and continuing to manifest obvious bias against the subject? I'm still waiting for your references. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 03:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult and often impossible to provide references on such extremely local politics. The major newspapers cover it in only the most cursory fashion, and I wouldn't stoop to providing bogus references like footnote number two which is merely a questionaire filled out by the alderman. Her unverified answers are used to support the assertion that she has the support of various interests groups. Again, it's misinformation. For one, she was not endorsed by the Chicago Fire Fighters Union. What do you want for a reference on that? The phone number of the union hall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.3.8 (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Having said all that, let me add this. While my concerns about notability and accuracy lead me to support deletion, I really wouldn't mind seeing the veil of secrecy lifted off this woman. Where and when was she born, and where was she raised? What is her education level? What was her last private sector paid job? What real estate investments do she and her husband own in secret trusts? Who belongs to her kitchen cabinet? What hours does she work? How much vacation does she take? What pension benefits is she set up to collect? Is she taking anti-depressents? How has she voted on issues involving her contributors? How is her real estate broker husband benefiting from her position? Why was it necessary to spend $700,000 to get re-elected, and is this possibly an all time record for a city council campaign? etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.3.8 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I guess your real interest in the subject is now clear. If you can't get the article deleted, you are now resorting to unsupported slander and veiled accusations (albeit in the form of loaded questions), including use of anti-depressants. I know nothing about Vi Daley, but those kind of personal attacks are what turns off voters. Cbl62 (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So because you dislike that out of 14 questions, a couple could be considered loaded, you're going to be supportive of the continuation of false information and bogus references in the article. Go figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.3.8 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything yet on your end to prove your accusations or refute the info presented. You must have some sources for the "facts" you've been throwing around other than apparent personal opinions and speculations. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 04:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

okokok. If you're not going to delete it then maybe when I have time, I'll try and put some stuff together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.29.100 (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys are completely nuts. The article sounds like eight people wrote it and some have a point of view. Why not get Vi to write it since it needs to be completely biased, one way or another... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.35.78 (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Age

Can't seem to be able to find date of birth anywhere. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy, POV

"This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (March 2010)" This policy results in an obvious bias towards retention of primarily flattering statements. The article is biased. There are minimal mentions of the voluminous criticisms of this politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.176.2 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vi Daley. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100921115024/http://chicityclerk.com/roll_call/2006/july26.html to http://www.chicityclerk.com/roll_call/2006/july26.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100712045042/http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/about/wards/43/alderman_vi_daley.html to http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/about/wards/43/alderman_vi_daley.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080531223259/http://www.chicago43rd.org:80/map.html to http://www.chicago43rd.org/map.html

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) 23:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)