Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Hillel

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. There's consensus to remove the article. There's no discussion about the proposed redirect to New Zealand's Got Talent (series 2), where she is mentioned. It's up to editors to consider whether such a redirect would be appropriate in the light of this discussion. Sandstein 13:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Hillel

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has requested deletion. She is relatively unknown, and a non-public figure. I am personally in touch with the subject, and assert that she seeks deletion. Subject fails to meet notability criteria for musicians. Coverage subject received was trivial. Subject was a minor child star, and now, as an adult, seeks to remove herself from the spotlight Rklahn (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salted redirect to New Zealand's Got Talent (series 2) Unfortunately we can't remove the subject's entire presence off from here, so a redirect here will probably work, although if everyone else supports a full salt, I'm all for it. It's clear from the above they're ready to move on from what they were forced into as a child (and I forsee this happening in the next few years as more ...Got Talent and other reality show kids with no choice are ready to move onto quieter lives, so frankly there should be a soild opt-out policy being built out for these types of cases), and I hope they have a very fruitful adulthood whatever they do. Most of the sources in the article are insular NZTV NZGT show, WP:YOUTUBE, directory, or chart spam links anyways. Nate • (chatter) 02:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How does a subject go about proving they are who they say they are and that they want their article deleted? There was first an Australian IP address that asked for this New Zealand citizen and now Rklahn says they are in talks with the subject. It probably would be easier for the subject to contact Wikipedia in some way to prove who they are. As for whether they are notable, I would vote Keep since the article has reliable sources passing WP:GNG and their album charted on national charts thus passing WP:NMUSIC. Aspects (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a subject should have to definitively prove that they are who they say they are. Like an editor, we should assume good faith. There is no existing process for a subject to contact Wikipedia in order to prove who they are, and to make Jessie go through one would be ex post facto. To that point, this is the fourth attempt by Jessie to get this page deleted: Speedy delete, a question in the teahouse, proposed deletion, and now here. Also, and this is important, Jessie should not have to go public to get this page deleted. Privacy is a human right, and one she did not surrender as an adult.

I get that your position is that she is notable because of the reliable sources. I disagree, but suggest thats not the test here. WP:BIODEL speaks to this when it says that biographical articles of relatively unknown non-public figures should be deleted where the subject requests it. We can discuss further the "has the subject requested it" bit, but, again, assume good faith and Im convinced Im talking to Jessie. To the IP geolocation issue, I would say this: It should not be surprising to find someone believed to be from New Zealand in Australia. In fact, it's pretty common.

And if you still believe that policy and guidelines point to Keep, I would respond with this. Ignore all rules and common sense point to deletion. It makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, and makes Jessie's life better.

Thank you very much for your question. Both you and Nate raise an important point. It should be far clearer how people in Jessie's situation can get articles they are the subject of deleted. That being said, she and I are working within the process we have, and I urge Delete. Rklahn (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was a process for this situation, but I could not find it when I searched. There should be a process where they could e-mail someone at Wikipedia, the same way OTRS issues are handled at WikiCommons. Now that I thought about that there is something at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard, for Issues with an article about you or your organization to e-mail [email protected]. Aspects (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried hard to find something like this when I first got involved, and did not find it. There is currently an 11 day backlog, so I think we will take our chances here first. There really should be a main page link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help, this should be much easier to find (Im going to Talk:Main Page next). Nate mentioned this in his comment, and I agree. The nature of ...Got Talent and other reality shows featuring children is going to lead to more of this over time. Thanks for pointing the noticeboard out. Rklahn (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The subject's opinions on this page isn't relevant. The subject of article shouldn't influence or edit the page about themselves. (See WP:COI) The reality is if you are in the public eye, then people will write and publish about you -- and in the internet era, it is much more permanent than before.

I also don't believe this page is anything to be ashamed of and I don't believe it will draw any extra attention to Hillel. If Hillel is out of the public eye, then most people won't search for her and will soon forget about her. Anyone who knows her outside of music and finds this won't think any worse of her.

But this page does, in my view, fail to prove notability. The references are mostly YouTube videos and links to songs. If the article was to prove its notability, it would need to be primarily news articles. I believe it fails WP:GNG and should be redirected to New Zealand's Got Talent (series 2). Nexus000 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken, but..... Where WP:COI suggests the subject should not influence the article, WP:BIODEL directly addresses this scenario.

Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no clear consensus to keep may be closed as delete.

WP:COI is guideline, WP:BIODEL is policy, and should take precedence.

Had the subject chosen, as an adult, to enter the public eye, I would be less sympathetic to her plight. But thats not what happened here. Someone, an adult responsible to her, entered her into a contest. She did well enough to become notable in the moment, enough so that an article was written. Years later, as an adult, she would like it taken down. Her motivations seem unimportant. It fits into WP:BIODEL and should come down. Even if one does not accept that logic, its common sense to reach delete, and WP:UCS

as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.

Rklahn (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need to respect the rights of individuals, and not force permanent article status on people who as adults choose not to follow up on the fairly limited coverage they got as a child.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree. I actually think from among the points to delete, this is by far the most important, which is why Im making a 5th pillar - Ignore all rules argument above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklahn (talk • contribs) 23:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've changed my position from redirect to delete. I agree with User:John Pack Lambert. Nexus000 (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2021 (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.