Talk:Penelope Trunk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nomination for Deletion[edit]

This person does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. - Jirt (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable claims of accomplishment[edit]

She claims he was the founder of Math.com. I wrote to the president of Math.com asking if this were true. I received this email in response from George Kirikos:

Thank you for your email.
My company acquired the Math.com website in late 2004 from Encore
Software (www.encore.com) which is a division of Navarre
(www.navarre.com). I'm afraid I don't know who Penelope Trunk is --
you might want to contact Encore or Navarre, to see if they have any
memory of her (or perhaps there's something on Archive.org from the
earliest archives of the site).
Actually, according to her LinkedIn profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/penelopetrunk
she claims to have worked at Encore Software between 1994 and 2001, so
her timeline would be consistent.

(Note, however, that she isn't merely saying she worked there. She's saying it's one of the two companies she founded. (Note: in some online bios floating around online, she claims to have founded three companies before her current blog.)

I feel if that revelation doesn't qualify this article for deleting, nothing does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like you're delving into original research; moreover, there is no reason to accept that this alleged e-mail is even legitimate. Even if you are correct about math.com (if I should beleive someone who posts without even signing their comments), one small factual error is hardly reason enough to support your wild conclusion about deletion. In any event, it's time for you and the other IP posters to get over the fact that this article has survived two AfD nominations and end with the unsupported drive-by comments. Agent 86 (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Penelope, it should be deleted. And my name is John Grabowski. Happy now? And you can write to the math.com address yourself and I'm sure you'll get the same answer that I did. No reason to believe this email is legitimate when I wrote to their site and they answered me, whereas this article is filled with totally unverified claims and not one outside citation yet it should be accepted at face value?? This entry should by any reasonable standard be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please review WP:REDACT before changing your talk page comments. While your comment remains dated 5 Jan 2012, you significantly changed it on 4 August 2012, about the same time you edited the article, seemingly based upon the revised version of your comments. Agent 86 (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

Why is this an entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.145.231 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question. There's no obvious evidence of notability. Binarybits (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The edit history looks like it might be a vanity page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.2.76 (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It should be removed. This individual is only a blogger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.147.69 (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found her page while searching for meaningful content and I can't believe I hit it. Delete this self-promoter ASAP. It's pathetic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.153.194 (talk) 25 February 2013
What is really pathetic is all this drive-by complaining without any real substance to back it up. This article has survived several AfDs. Feel free to nominate it again if you really think it won't pass again. Otherwise, if you don't think it's adequately sourced or well-written, then try to improve it. Agent 86 (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE[edit]

Doesn't seem to satisfy any of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people). No reliable published secondary sources about the subject that I can see (her web site has a list of press coverage, all of which seem to be articles about other things that quote her in passing), no independent biography, no widespread name recognition, no widely recognized contributions or endorsements. Looking at the list of guidelines for creative professionals, she doesn't seem to satisfy any of those either. At best, she's a blogger and columnist with one recently published book; I don't think this cuts it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.99.27 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It should be removed. The individual is entirely unnotable. 164.36.38.240 (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This person may be the least relevant person ever posted on Wikipedia. DELETE NOW. In fact, the fact that an article exists on her while dozens of Nobel Laureates and Marshall Scholars don't have a page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.153.194 (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are articles that don't exist that should, why not register your account and create them, instead of repeatedly doing drive-by complaints without even having the temerity to sign your comments, even if you're not logged in. Agent 86 (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previously Deleted[edit]

This article met deletion guidelines in 2009 and nothing has changed since then. It was deleted once and should be removed again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.40.101 (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted via the PROD process and restored when contested. The G4 speedy deletion criteria only applies to articles deleted via the Article for Deletion process. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really should have read the AfD discussions, the links to which are clearly posted at the top of this talk page. You would have seen that this page had never been deleted within any proper process. It had been erroneously deleted in 2009 after an expired {{prod}} (see here); however, it was deleted this way despite having survived an AfD discussion in 2007. If you read that AfD discussion, you'll see that it came after a previous "prod" had been disputed. It is contrary to policy for an article to be eligible for WP:PROD deletion if there had been a previous "prod" or previous AfD discussion. Therefore, this article should not have been deleted without a second AfD discussion. The error was corrected through Deletion Review. Shortly after it was restored, it was posted at AfD for a second time. Again, the article survived the AfD process. As for "nothing has changed", well, see the most recent AfD discussion. If you think there are problems with the article, I encourage you to improve it. Agent 86 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - She is not very notable at all - at least not independently - a low notable blogger....Delete - If anyone renominates it please add my vote/comment to the discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Better references are needed in that seven of the eight listed are written by the subject of the article. As it currently stands, this can hardly be considered an unbiased article, and could even possibly be considered nothing more than a vanity article. Entrybreak (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then find some and help improve the article. Agent 86 (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advert?[edit]

This sentence: "Trunk wrote a column for the Boston Globe that was syndicated in 200 newspapers across the United States" was recently tagged as having advertising/promotional language. I removed this tag. That sentence is, according to the accompanying citation, a fact. I don't see how it is promotional language. The fact is that her column was syndicated in 200 newspapers. Does someone have a suggestion on how to phrase this in a less promotional way? Safehaven86 (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her column was NOT syndicated in 200 newspapers across the USA. I called many of the papers she claimed to have been in. They said she wasn't. She is a chronic liar, like Sarah Palin. She should be treated as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8104:730:C501:2E4B:A9CC:1909 (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her employee is editing this page for her[edit]

In a blog entry in February 2015, she states that she has asked her editor to maintain her desired image on this Wikipedia page.

"But then I thought, 'Forget it, because my Wikipedia page says I’m crazy and a liar even though I have worked very hard to have the editor of my blog also edit my Wikipedia page.'"[1]

I don't really see how this is any different than doing it herself, or having her husband do it. In fact, she follows that up by saying:

"Wikipedia is good at sniffing out if you are having someone who is your spouse or boyfriend or whatever editing your Wikipedia page. They don’t like that. And really, my editor has been my editor for so long that at this point, he counts as a boyfriend."

Seems to me like she is intentionally subverting Wikipedia's integrity.

08:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "How to not self-destruct". Penelope Trunk. Retrieved 12 April 2015.

Asperger syndrome diagnosed by clinical neuropsychologist[edit]

The statement in the article's "Personal life" section that "Trunk has diagnosed herself with Asperger syndrome" appears to be challenged by reference number 21 dated July 30, 2010, which states that "She says it was only when her elder son, now eight, was undergoing tests for Asperger’s with a neuropsychologist that she was also tested and diagnosed." As a reporter's narrative statement published by a major media source (the U.K. Daily mail), it would easily overrule the claims of blog-readers' comments that the subject was "self-diagnosed" published within reference number 22 dated Jan. 10, 2013. I have, therefore, edited the original statement to read "Trunk as been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome" and left the two citations and links to stand on their own.

The mysterious "self-destruct" footnote below isn't mine. 2001:558:6008:3B:70E8:5D7:EAC:B6E2 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the Penelope Trunk who wrote hypertexts under the pen name Adrienne Eisen?[edit]

HI, ELMCIP has Adrienne Eisen as "Short biography: Wrote hypertext fictions in the 1990s, followed by a novel, Making Scenes, which integrated writing and narratives from her hypertext Six Sex Scenes. Adrienne Eisen is one of the pen names of the woman also known as Penelope Trunk, a successful career blogger and business writer whose advice is always interwoven with dramatic personal stories." https://elmcip.net/person/adrienne-eisen/? If so, then, can we list her hypertext works here? Education Attended graduate writing program at Boston University. CAREER: Writer. Taught creative writing at Boston University; former editor for Artcommotion.com. AWARDS, HONORS: New Media Invision Award. WRITINGS: Also author of hypertext novels, including Six Sex Scenes, Alt-X Press, and What Fits, Eastgate. Contributor to online publications, including Alt-X, Iowa Review Web, and Eastgate. Making Scenes (novel), Broadvision, 2001. Bookmouth.com, http://www.bookmouth.com/ (June 28, 2002), Jeffrey Yamaguchi, "An Interview with Hypertext Novelist Adrienne Eisen. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks like! Your help in de-COI'ing this article would be welcome. -- asilvering (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This link is for the citation needed in the first line -- birthdate[edit]

http://www.bvbinfo.com/player.asp?ID=4102

I don't know how to add it to the article. 2601:182:C680:51E0:5044:AFF3:A335:774A (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Penelope_Trunk&oldid=1204227208"