Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Let it be known that perceived BLP violations have nothing to do with this; whether or not someone wants an article on Wikipedia, they have no say (COI and all that crap); if they're notable, article stays. Luckily for Ms. Whitehead, she's not notable per our guidelines (no sources aside from a 404 link and some reality TV site), so I chose to delete this. Also, consensus here seems to be delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Whitehead

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Cassandra Whitehead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Extremely borderline notability [1] and subject has blanked the page so would prefer it gone. Unlike what is said to her on her user talkpage, User_talk:Cassandrajean, yes we can delete a very borderline BLP if people are unhappy about it. I'd say this person is not notable anyway, she's been discussed in such sources as "Denver Post" and "Reality TV world" but nothing more mainstream or national has considered her worth discussing. Sticky Parkin 02:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a thread on AN/I about her unhappiness Wikipedia:ANI#User:Cassandrajean_at_Cassandra_Whitehead._Urgent_BLP_issue. Sticky Parkin 02:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then again they may not, much. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She seems perfectly notable, but if she doesn't want an article she shouldn't have to deal with having one (no celebrity should as far as I'm concerned. If this is the case then my vote is delete. Melia Nymph (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reality TV contestant has tantrum, leaves show, does bit parts. Notability is where? ThuranX (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as detailed in the previous AfD's this subject meets notability requirements. I appreciate that some think that notability is borderline but then so are the bio's of so many of these 15 minute TV "stars" and "wannabes". For my money there is enough to keep her here because she has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. As you all know we do not censor material but we do make it accurate (or as accurate as possible) and towards that end the editor who says she is the subject can assist - however entertaining a third request for deletion because someone who says they are subject and has blanked the page is not a good enough reason IMO to delete.--VS talk 03:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject wants it gone, and this is not really a key part of the encyclopedia. WP:BIO#Entertainers is a high standard to meet, so there is a case for deletion on regular notability grounds. It is not sufficient just to have press coverage. I encourage the editors voting 'Keep' to state which of these three criteria she satisfies:
  • Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how many times people have mentioned her on their livejournal or blogger blog etc, not many national papers or anything have mentioned her as far as I know, and only a few minor WP:RS have. I can only find 3940 google hits, and that's not even unique ones, which people usually prefer, so I don't know what you're doing differently, did you remember to put the two words together in quotes? I use google news as it shows WP:RS, and like I said there are seven local or gosspy internet ones, I mean I don't know what "reality TV world" is, but I can imagine. Sticky Parkin 04:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If she was notable during the show, she's notable afterwards. Personally i think this sort of reality is best ignored altogether, so I'm not !voting. DGG (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Google search does give a different result if you use double quotes. There are only 3,770 hits for the double-quoted string "Cassandra Whitehead". The #1 hit for her name is her Wikipedia article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete marginal notability at best and subject appears to want it gone. RMHED (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't care less whether she wants it gone or not, but she just doesn't seem particularly notable. Celarnor Talk to me 04:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deleted discussions. ApprenticeFan (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This debate has been included in the list of living people-related deleted discussions. ApprenticeFan (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a reality television contestant who did not win, has not used her reality TV stint to springboard a career, and whose main claim to fame is leaving the show of her own free will, which isn't that much of a claim to fame. All of the sources are directly related to her reality TV appearance, or generated because of the same. Outside of the show, the other 'claims to fame' given in the article don't pass the notability inclusion bar for me. Winning in a handful of city-wide beauty contests or placing in a handful of region/state-wide contests isn't that big a thing. Her profile at IMDB leads me to believe that her non-reality TV appearances are all minor roles (i.e. credited for single episode appearances as "Bikini Contestant" or "Murder Victim #1"). Failing deletion, redirect or recreate as redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 5, the season of the show she participated in. -- saberwyn
  • Keep This is starting to become a very bad precedent. It really doesn't matter a bit what she thinks of her article. The question is whether we have articles about people that are notable for being reality game show contestants. Since the answer seems to be "yes, we do", then the answer is "yes, we have an article about Cassandra Jean/Cassandra Whitehead." —Kww(talk) 12:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the jury's still out on whether or not BLP subjects can request that their articles be deleted, however, isn't the usual practice for such AFDs to include an OTRS ticket number? If we are going to consider deleting BLPs on the request of their subjects then there needs to be a reliable way for such subjects to identify themselves. Anybody can create an account with the name of a BLP subject and say "I want it gone". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind, I don't think BLPs which meet WP:N should be deleted by request of the subject. Since this article doesn't meet Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers, I think it's ok for her input to tip it over into to deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been discussed twice and twice the result has been a keep. Do we even have a confirmation that it's her who blanked the page and not someone else? And to me pageant + ANTM + guests roles + some press about her quitting = notable.--Whadaheck (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete solely on the grounds of notability, not because the subject wants it deleted. Absent any BLP issues whatever happened to "Wikipedia is not censored". ukexpat (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of the fact that the subject (apparently) wants it deleted, I believe that a whole bunch of very minor notable events does not make her notable. Guest-starring on shows for an episode is not really notable. Quitting on ANTM is not really notable outside of the fanbase. Placing in minor pageants is not really notable. If one of these were a bit more substantial (say, multi-episode arc, or at least placing top 3 on Top Model), then keeping would make sense to me, but as of right now...I don't believe the subject to be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Notability is established as per consensus at previous AfDs. Multiple reliable sources. Deletion per the request of the subject is not reasonable in this context because a) she arguably is a willing public figure and b) we don't have direct evidence or confirmation that I am aware of that this is in fact the article subject (we've had cases before where trolls have pretended to be article subjects and tried to get articles deleted) c) her primary reason for desiring deletion was " I have emailed Wiki about fixing there errors and deleting the page. Please keep it deleted until it can be resolved, as the information is false." She doesn't object to having an article. She objects to an inaccurate one. The proper approach to that is correcting the article. In fact, it appears that editors are working on that right now. Deleting it is thus not a productive response. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should this discussion would speedy close? Here's the result:
Delete: 10 Keep: 5 121.96.101.100 (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It should go for the full five days like everything else. 10-5 is hardly a strong consensus for deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Reality TV contestant has tantrum, leaves show, does bit parts. Notability is where?" Notability is in the various sources, whether those on the article, those on the Google News search (for example, the Dallas newspaper article), and others that can be found on a simple Google search. So what if she fails the entertainers criteria? One can be notable simply by receiving plenty of coverage, which she has. Failing the entertainers criteria doesn't automatically make someone nonnotable: after all, Mike Veon is plainly notable, even though he obviously doesn't pass the entertainers criteria. Simple answer: she receives enough sources to be notable, and blanking by user claiming to be her (whether or not user is telling the truth) doesn't count toward deletion. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Couldn't have said it better myself.--Siemgi (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - do we really need another example of someone who ends up voicing their frustrations to the media about a BLP? If she can be engaged on making it accurate, keep. But her most recent blanking seems to indicate that she's given up on out of frustration with prolonged Wikiprocess. arimareiji (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the subject of a BLP is a victim of crime, a child, or if it can be shown that the article is causing damage to them, or if it is impossible to write the article in a neutral manner, I would agree: delete always. In other cases where the subject requests it (ie: for convenience or personal preference only), we should take it to AFD to demonstrate good faith, but with a deaf ear and judge the article solely on the content and our own guidelines. In this particular circumstance, the article should be judged with a deaf ear as no claim of damage or victimization is claimed or demonstrated. Based on the content of the article, quality and quantity of sources, and the guidelines on notablity the article should be kept. Enforce WP:BLP in the strictest manner for contentious content, but keep. There appears to be no victims in this case, unless we make Wikipedia an "opt out" encyclopedia. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Dennis Brown and per the WP:ANI discussion - the subject blanks the page because it contains "false" information -- if it does, they should tell us on the talk page what's wrong with it. The subject seems perfectly notable to me - multiple TV show personality and beauty pageant winner. -¤Belinrahs talk/contribs¤
  • Sigh. Delete per nomination. X MarX the Spot (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, borderline notability at most. Subject's preference does not need to be considered. Looking through List of America's Next Top Model contestants, most blue-linked individuals are top-3 finishers. Of the rest, Isis King has the most independent coverage, others are shaky, and a few are already at AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Public figures do not and should not ever have the right to dictate if Wikipedia may write about them - so long as what is written is properly sourced and not defamatory or otherwise damaging to the subject. Proposed deletion has the potential to set a very bad precedent. What's next? Deleting George W Bush because someone on his staff doesn't like the tone or content of the WP article and repeatedly blanks it? --Gene_poole (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a very big difference in notability between the two individuals. You're comparing a President of the United States with a contestant on a reality show that has 4 million viewers in the United States. It's like comparing Elton John with a losing contestant on American Idol/Pop Idol/X-Factor/etc.. There's a very clear difference in terms of notability and visibility. Regardless of whether or not she wants the article to be deleted, Wikipedia policies regarding inclusion must be looked at first. SKS2K6 (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 15 Keep: 10
Polls are evil, Polling discourages consensus. 121.96.114.195 (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100 poorly argued keeps don't matter if just 1 well argued delete exists, e.g. pointing out that the article fails Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-11t11:32z
Comment Remember that, if we keep this and she complains to the media, the office could theoretically take care of things if they really saw it as superdamaging. This isn't the place to consider public relations issues: we determine whether the article fits notability, NPOV, and other standards. Nyttend (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your logic that we shouldn't be debating PR here. And if Wikipedia keeps moving toward being an "opt out" encyclopedia, I am not sure everyone will see Wikipedia as "uncensored" or "neutral". DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cassandra_Whitehead_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137681846"