Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Waltz

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Waltz[edit]

Jasmine Waltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP notability criteria. Thre or four minor roles as an actress, and currently a 'contestant' on Celebrity Big Brother - though as huffingtonpost.co.uk/entertainment/ points out, few seem to have heard of her: "When Jasmine Waltz strutted into the 'Celebrity Big Brother' house this year everyone (including us) asked, 'who she?'." [1] If the best source for assertions concerning notability states explicitly that the person has failed to be noted, one has to conclude that they are right. As with all contestants ('celebrity' and otherwise) on such shows, there is the usual tabloid gossip and vacuous bollocks doing the rounds, though none of it is fit for purpose as a source on a biography, and none of it does anything to establish notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, how does an article entitled "Who is Jasmine Waltz?" indicate that she is famous? If she was, they wouldn't have to ask. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Famous" for her dating? How encyclopedic. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Lots of notable people aren't well-known. I bet most people don't know who Chester Thompson is, but that doesn't make him not notable. Also, the source in which you quote, is the British version of the Huffington Post. I'm sure that there are also lots of British actors and actresses who aren't well-known in the US either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't seriously suggesting that Waltz meets our notability criteria as an actress? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't expressed an opinion either way. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per A Quest For Knowledge.--Launchballer 20:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AQFN hasn't !voted... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. The combination of Celebrity Big Brother, appearances in films and her personal life add up to a keep. Better?--Launchballer 21:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Worse. You have failed to explain which specific Wikipedia notability criteria Waltz meets, and why. Incidentally, everyone has a 'personal life' - it doesn't make them notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant her affiliation with other celebrities, which pre-Celebrity Big Brother was probably what she was best known for. Still discounting that, WP:1EVENT - she is known for more than one event.--Launchballer 21:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't inherited. And nor can it be acquired by dating notable people... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or redirect as per TRPoD above. Now that the worst of the BLP vios have been removed (most of them not by me, though I just blanked a nasty quote), there's practically nothing left. No notability, for sure. I'm surprised to learn from the history that an admin moved Launchballer's (see the "Keep" just above) userspace draft in this wretched condition into mainspace, in preference to deleting it as an attack page. I'm still tempted to speedy it per WP:A7, but I guess it's a bit late in the day for that. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Nom + Bish sum it up nicely. Can someone just recreate a deleted article?Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas entirely non notable. I found [3] (the Daily Mail, so anybody fastidious won't want to look) which describes her as being more famous for her 'love life' than her acting. Delete as gossip-column trash.TheLongTone (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was surprised when I saw she didn't have one. I know <-- WP:BLP violation redacted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC) --> don't have entries of their own, but both were not in the public eye prior to their affair and disappeared shortly after their short CBB stints. Jasmine has at least appeared in films, albeit small roles. I say keep as she is at least notable to an extent, and lots of bit player actresses have entries on here. Reli source (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the unlikely event that she wins CBB she will likely satisfy notability guidelines. Wait and see. Leaky Caldron 22:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaky caldron: She is now out.--Launchballer 22:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I see! Leaky Caldron 22:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see her making a name for herself in the UK,if the US don't want her, similar to Ruby Wax and Caprice. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete really? Why is this even remotely encyclopedic? Who is Jasmine Waltz? Answer? No one. Folk put her on CBB because she was colourful - but there's nothing at all notable here. The only thing notable about her is that she was on CBB, so mention that on a page on the show - and if it isn't important enough for that - then it isn't.--Scott Mac 22:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Her IMDB doesn't exactly consist of one credit. So I don't see what the big deal is, will anyone lose sleep if she has an article? Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability other than having had minor acting roles, and participating in the thirteenth series of CBB (thirteenth—participants are not inherently notable). Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO rather thoroughly and has become a dumping ground for tabloid trash speculation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has some actress roles. And is now on Celeb BB. Had she not been part of BB I guess she would be a weak delete but with BB credit she now passes.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Some actress roles" isn't a criteria in WP:NACTOR, and notability isn't inherited. What exactly is she supposed to be notable for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you are considering as actress roles: "customer #3" and "smoking girl" - really?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is a celebrity [unsourced BLP redacted]. This is a legitimate genre of the entertainment industry. It was widely reported in the entertainment press when it was released and it is still being reported and discussed in newspapers today. Therefore notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.27.41 (talk • contribs)
This IP has been blocked for six months.[4] Bishonen | talk 00:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. The article was created due to her inclusion in Celebrity Big Brother just a few days ago. But the appearance doesn't confer notability in my opinion and the refs provided are just weak re-iterations of her appearance on Big Brother. Szzuk (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is possible that more coverage would be generated by a longer stay on Big Brother, but that is mere speculation. As it is, all coverage appears to by non-WP:RS. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AndyTheGrump you clearly have a personal vendetta against Waltz, which you should put aside, as Wikipedia is meant to be neutral. I just don't get why people care so much if someone has an article or not. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to explain how I could possibly have a 'personal vendetta' against someone I hadn't heard of until a few days ago? And in answer to your question, the reason that people 'care' is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dumping-ground for sub-tabloid trivia. We have notability criteria, arrived at through community consensus, and it is entirely obvious that Waltz doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria - nobody has yet even offered any real explanation as to what Waltz is supposed to be notable for. If you don't like it you can (a) propose that the criteria be changed, or (b) start your own online encyclopaedia. Otherwise, you will have to accept that the community has different views than you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2014 (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/Jasmine_Waltz&oldid=1088294771"