Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chantelle Houghton
- 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 of the debate was keep. Results counted: Keep: 11, Delete: 3. All other votes were disregarded as sockpuppet votes, and/or personal attacks. →FireFox 17:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chantelle Houghton[edit]
Does not meet WP:BIO. Is ordinary member of public taking part in a game show - would create massive headache for precedent if all such public members were allows articles. Is not notable under Wiki rules and has been instructed to lie about celeb/notable status on screen. doktorb | words 21:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no less notable than several other TV personalities. Already several participants on "ordinary" BB have entries. She is more than just an ordinary member of the public making a transitory appearance on a game show. Whether she succeeds or fails, her case raises some significant questions about the nature of celebrity, and (along with the recent Space Cadets programme, the line between fiction and reality on programmes like this. PatGallacher 22:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. Englishrose 22:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advice could be argued as deletion as she is not famous. However, reports that the page will cause legal problems are untrue, the page is for information only, and any deletion of the page claiming to be for legal reasons in vandalism. However, contestants on regular BB have had pages created, and she is certainly going to be known for her appearance, particularly as it is the first of it's kind. However, I am not willing to either argue for or against the deletion, i just want to give advice. Mikeroberts 14:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per PatGallacher Jcuk 23:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being on Big Brother in the first place at least makes her well known. Keeno 00:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed she is only a participant in a game show, but the voting record for BB is in the millions and she has already got dozens of column inches in the British tabloids (which contributes to one of the criteria). On her exit various magazines and newspapers will be willing to give her thousands for interviews & pictures, at least one photoshoot for FHM or equivalent would be more or less guaranteed (more contribution to the same critera). By the nature of BB as a gameshow & it's populatity, more or less all it's participants are recognisable by the UK public which fulfills another of the criteria in WP:BIO MGSpiller 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other BB contestants on other 'ordinary' shows have pages --Prof Jolly 01:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- She's become a major part of the early part of the show.Logan1138 13:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as PatGallacher and MGSpiller above. Sweetie Petie 14:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio, not really a 'celebrity' in the same light as Mariah Carey or Tom Cruise. Ideal candidate for speedy deletion. --Sunfazer 13:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. She is on BB which means she's already getting loads written about her in the press. There will be much more written as the time progresses. Also, there is something of notable about her situation which makes her stand out from all other BB contestants. Evil Eye 15:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep once she took part in that game show she was no longer an ordinary member of the public -- Astrokey44|talk 15:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - SHE IS NOT A CELEBRITY. WHY THE FUCK DO YOU ALLOW THIS SHITE?? SHE IS NOT A CELEBRITY. END OF. --205.234.187.222 16:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep/merge; either keep (which seems better to me), or merge into an article covering al l this series' Big Brother contestants. — Zazou 16:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
new users[edit]
Delete - she will sue if she reads this. Remove for legal reasons. --BekahHarlow 13:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know the individual, and she wants this removed. Also she isn't a celebrity, she's a Joe Public. Please remove. --Gazza1980 14:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you say she wants this removed when she is locked up in the Big Brother house with no outside contact? --Prof Jolly 14:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt that ver much as it would be against BB rules --Prof Jolly 14:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And if this is to be deleted why have he profile on Channel 4 pages[1] --Prof Jolly 14:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know Channel 4 has informed her of this page and why should we believe you? Sweetie Petie 14:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Totaly agree Sweetie Petie --Prof Jolly 14:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Chantelle is a friend of mine, do we really need every single person in the UK on here?? Surely this should be removed. --Dannii Harman 14:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know her, this article is a waste of space. She wouldn't be pleased to see it. --ClaireJanssen 14:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not appropriate on here, breach of personal privacy. I know her well. --JoanneCoolChick 14:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If she didn't want her "personal privacy" breached, she probably shouldn't have gone on Big Brother in the first place. Nothing said on that page isn't already available in newspapers or on the internet. Sweetie Petie 14:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Keep. →FireFox 14:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WE DO NOT WANT THIS SHIT ON WIKIPEDIA. WE CAN SUE!!! REMOVE IT NOW! --JaneAndrews1 16:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's first edit. →FireFox 16:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I would say she is a celebrity already and so wholly meritous of remaining in Wikipedia. After all, Faria Alam is famous for having slept with Sven and his former boss! Shes appeared on a TV programme and is commanding alot of press attention as a result. Shes the star of the programme, and good luck to her.
Delete - Obscene content, not a celebrity, remove. --Thesunandthemoon 16:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? Obscene content- where? So how does appearing on a TV programme watched by millions and commanding tablotd inches not make you a celebrity?
Delete - No need for this shit. Stop drinking soda. --Andrew P. Lin 16:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Not a celebrity, this is a vanity page written by the Willy on Wheels --Kinuther 16:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's first edit. →FireFox 16:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, what an absurd comment. The page has never been edited by Willy on Wheels (or is that possible seen as the user appears to have been banned for over 10 months). I also cannot see any reason to call it vanity, as vanity would probably apply Chantelle herself writing the article. As the article appears to have been started after BB started, that is also impossible as there are no internet connections inside the house. This whole list of brand new users who's first (and often only edit) is to vote on this user page is not going to make those votes count as much as those (both in favour of delete and keep) from long standing members. I'm not sure if they are the work of the same person or numerous people. But if it is just one person, I do ask them to stop wasting their time in creating new names to vote with. You've made your point and getting angry will not help you further your point of view.Evil Eye 16:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments These arguments are getting loonier. It can hardly be a vanity page if someone unconnected wrote it. It's also clearly not Willy on Wheels - I, amongst others, have edited it. I'm neutral on the AfD, although if it's deleted the information should go to the Celeb BB UK article and a redirect established.
- Some of the votes here are remarkably similarly worded. <whistles> --Whouk (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Surely the reaction on this discussion page shows why she is important- by provoking reactions allround! Becoming a celebrity by being a non-celebrity. Surely that must be a first!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob77 (talk • contribs)
DELETE WHAT A LOAD OF BLOODY SHITE. --Gibraltarian11 16:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not the place for such shit. It should fuck off to Uncyclopedia. --Goulberno 16:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I am getting rather concerned that people here are using multiple entries to try and settle some sort of scores!? I fail to see what the poor girl has done to merit such abuse. Is there anyway to report this to the administrators so they can take the multiple "delete" votes from the same user into account?
- That is what I have been doing, marking as "User's first edit"... The closing admin will take this into account. →FireFox 16:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fight!! Yay, this is a great Wiki-brawl.... good fun to watch! Delete this odd article!! Wikipedia is Communism!! --Covono 17:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV-FORK!! Wikipedia is Communism!!! Wikipedia is Communism!!! It's a POV-fork!!! --Wickwar 17:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a bloody pile of shite!! --Brambigan 17:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Get rid of this page on the little slut. And User:Pigsonthewing needs to start having a wheel war with User:Firefox. --Hoyeo 17:11, 8 January 2006 (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.