Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Nicholson

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Nicholson

[edit]

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

Jenny Nicholson (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)

Jenny Nicholson has requested that this article be taken down. Personal information has already been removed by various users because she expressed discomfort with the details having been shared due to a stalker in the past, but Ms. Nicholson would prefer to not even have a page, as it's likely that people will still try to add that information or refer to what was previously there. One user (likely assuming the deletions were malicious) has already been reverting deletions made by users attempting to remove personal information on the subject, hence the ask to remove the entire page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickycrayon (talk • contribs) 21:40, July 7, 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment While I understand there are privacy concerns with this article, I do not know that deletion of the entire article should be a solution if this article meets the criteria of notability for living persons. If it does I recommend keeping it if the privacy issues can be rectified. We do not want to set dangerous precedents that subjects can start dictating what should be and should not be in articles about them or even if there is one about them, lest we start having issues with neutral point of view. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 22:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree with No1Lakersfan, the subject is notable enough to warrant an article, but given how bizarrely personal the article was before it was edited I feel like the page needs protection/semi-protection or someone to watch the page and make sure it's okay. In the interim I will vote to keep the article, but there needs to be closer monitoring. More importantly this needs to not happen again, so extending protection as long as possible would be best. AngryZinogre (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully respecting Ms. Nicholsons feelings of unease and agreeing with any edits deemed fit to rectify this situation. The information may have been too detailed but it's inaccurate to label as extraordinarily personal as it was readily available through her influential social media platforms for her large audience and regarded topics she routinely discusses as a Youtuber and influencer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwilightFluttershy (talk • contribs) 01:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would second protecting for as long as possible if the page cannot or should not be removed, and I would contest the notion that information is "readily available" on social media. Ms. Nicholson clearly stated earlier today that information contained in the page as of earlier today would have to be found by doing quite a bit of digging back into her social media accounts; not to get too much into semantics, but that's not the same as "readily available" as in "something you can find by looking at her own Twitter bio or website". Trickycrayon (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • While IMDb is not a good source of information for Wikipedia, it does have some of the same information that was being displayed here. Yes some of what was posted someone ‘dug’ up, but some of it is out there just by searching Google. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 02:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Already agreed with whatever action the team deems correct but respectfully, what content would we have on every actor, musician, writer and content creators page on this site if not information that's been "dug up" as opposed to a few sentences they post on their facebook, instagram or twitter bios. Her DOB is on her imdb, her city of residence on twitter, her patreon count on patreon and numerous articles about her or even written by her are all a google search away but stripped from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwilightFluttershy (talk • contribs) 05:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it's obvious that the majority of the additions made to her page grossly violates the BLP standards and that the only neutral things that can be put on her article right now is what is already on there. Because of that, I don't think she's particularly notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page, and thus I vote to delete this page as well. Victory in Germany (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No proper sources of the subject other than databases or primary that do not establish notability and given the privacy issues along with her wishes, it's better than the article doesn't exist. : Zubin12 (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources, which hasn't been demonstrated. She has plenty of short mentions, and appears in some lists of YouTube channels, but that doesn't really cut it, as the length of the article as it stands shows. There's not enough RS coverage of Nicholson to write an encyclopedia article about her, for now. Ralbegen (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you judging based on the article as it currently stands? Because there WERE references to newspaper articles where she is singled out as one of a few Youtubers who actually are making a name for themselves but those references are now gone as someone took a hatchet to the article for no reason that I can understand and now that the article is locked (as well as previous versions) it's hard to find those references. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MadScientistX11: An administrator locked the article and made previous versions invisible due to serious BLP violations. I'm judging the reliable source coverage based on looking for appropriate sources. Being singled out by a newspaper doesn't necessarily constitute significant coverage, and I've not been able to find any RS coverage that I think is significant. The article in its previous state was dominated by primary sourced material. Ralbegen (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't. This version (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jenny_Nicholson&direction=prev&oldid=897872177) had 27 sources, of which 16 were mainstream news outlets. 86.41.176.226 (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the article revision noted here does not have the privacy issues that have brought about this whole process, and the sources noted are reputable, it appears notability can be established. I do care about the privacy aspect, but if there is enough information available on the subject that does not breach privacy (if it’s published in a secondary source it’s public knowledge anyway) the article has merit. The content that breached privacy primarily came from social media, a source that can have its issues with being a good source depending on what it is cited for.
Long story short, I hope this aspect of the discussion will be considered along with all the other information. Hopefully this will become a lesson for the subject on publicly sourced info, and for everyone else on how to handle privacy issues.--Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 01:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this page which as a fan is a bit awkward. Is the page as I created it (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jenny_Nicholson&oldid=900988298) so bad? I did search her Twitter just to see where she went to school and to confirm her birthdate (it was already on IMDB) . To be honest I don't like the idea that a celebrity can just ask that a page on them can be deleted and wikipedia users just jump to it. Maybe it could remove any personal info. Sheila1988 (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The swift addition of further extremely personal details by other users is what became problematic, and the concern is that it could happen again. As far as celebrity goes, see other comments on WP:GNG. Trickycrayon (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are conflating two issues here. One issue is that allegedly (I haven't seen the evidence) inapropriate personal info kept being added to her article. The other is whether her article meets the standards for wp:notability I think she does meet the standard. The personal info can and should be dealt with in other ways such as protecting the page and/or blocking the editors who keep putting it back in. The personal info question has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on whether her article should be deleted. And it's hard to make the case for notability now that the page is locked and all that is there is a stub with all the references that were there in the past gone. I've actually participated in a few AFDs where I always argued against "Youtube celebrities" and when I stumbled across this article my first thought was I might nominate it for deletion but when I looked at the references (now no longer there) they seemed to be enough to merit an article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just addressing both points brought up by the original author. Information such as when Nicholson worked in what position at Disneyland Park, when she left, her horse's name, etc. were added to the article. This is particularly inappropriate due to past stalking behavior and Nicholson's concern for her safety if information is aggregated about her in an easily searchable/public place. We can disagree on notability all day long, I suppose, but I'm also concerned about safety here. Trickycrayon (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPF and the subject not wanting the article in the first place. We don't like sourcing to IMDb, and I know TVTropes certainly isn't meeting our sourcing guidelines in the first place. Not a lot of WP:GNG either (please don't bother responding about the past state of the article either, it isn't germane to the as-is state of the article now, nor could I even comment on it as I'm not an admin). Definitely keep the salting until the subject both wants an article, and it's not written in a privacy violating manner. Nate • (chatter) 20:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tv Tropes is not cited as a source, just an external link. Wikipedia generally does not ask people whether they want an article or not. The advice you linked to seems good: exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see § Using the subject as a self-published source. I mean, we get endless comment about lack of coverage of women on Wikipedia, but i don't think we should cover any living women if the whole thing can be salted at the subject's whim. Sheila1988 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if someone can find sufficient secondary sources to meet WP:BLP guidelines (note: not just any secondary sources, but reliable and verifiable ones) then they should do so. The article doesn't meet these criteria now and going through the history, it never really has. Heavily citing her personal twitter page as past versions did is a gross violation of WP:NOR sthomson06 (Talk) 20:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are tons of new secondary sources now that I check. The "younglings" affair earned a whole article from Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/star-wars-galaxys-edge-cast-younglings-disney-1442668) - There are few bigger Star Wars fans than movie YouTuber Jenny Nicholson, another namecheck from CNBC (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/04/you-can-buy-jedi-robes-at-star-wars-galaxys-edge-but-cant-wear-them.html), another list of "top YT channels" on Mashable (https://sea.mashable.com/culture/4296/7-youtube-channels-to-watch-when-you-need-to-kill-some-time) and a mention on /Film (https://www./theme-park-bits-disneyland-childcare-shocking-water-park-news-and-more/), I don't know if there's an exact metric of what makes an Internet videomaker "notable" but i can see we need to work out something Sheila1988 (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this will ever be a sufficient BLP because of the credible chance of harm to the subject. In particular, while not necessarily disputing notability, it looks to me right now as though additional information that doesn't violate WP:NOR and meets notability criteria for inclusion in the article will pretty much always also increase the chance of harm to the subject, and so should not be included per WP:BLP - Astrophobe (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Echoing what's been said above, given Ms. Nicholson's questionable notability and own personal uneasiness with the article, I believe delation for the time being is the proper course of action. If she becomes more notable in the future, I think an article could be remade, but given the current situation it seems unnecessary. If a new article is made at any point, it should definitely be monitored carefully. ViolaCola (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I would agree that the subject is notable, they have requested deletion. We have precedent for complying with these requests, see CGP Grey and edits around his name. While this would not technically be a G7 speedy (as she is not the author of the article), we also have the Speedy Deletion criteria for authors who request a page be deleted. In the CGP Grey case, we as editors maintain Grey's privacy because we're decent human beings (sometimes). In its current form, there are very few WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV to make this viable in the long-term. I agree with Astrophobe's assessment above. Nicholson has a variety of published articles and mainstream mentions, but to get the type of information that we get on other BLP candidates would involve a level of invasion of privacy that would at the very least violate the spirit of WP:NOR. I know that the intentions of Sheila1988, MadScientistX11, No1lakersfan and TwilightFluttershy are good (I hope), and this is not a suggestion that Nicholson is not talented or notable in Youtube spaces, but we should consider if this is really worth the amount of personal strain that this may cause to the subject of the article, and how much reliable information could theoretically be obtained without violating her privacy. Bkissin (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We could perhaps prevent the article from being a tool for stalkers — indefinitely semi-protect it, etc. — but deletion is simpler, and her wiki-notability is at most borderline. The available sourcing does not demonstrate that having an article on Nicholson is necessary to serve the public interest. (Unlike Lindsay Ellis, say, who is a Hugo nominee, received a lengthy profile in Wired, and so forth, the news stories "about" Nicholson are basically tweets quoted with stuff in the margins.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on WP:PERSON. This was not as clear-cut a case as I expected; I'm basing it on this revision, as noted above, which had 22 footnotes. It does not appear to me that there is enough coverage from independent reliable sources focused on Nicholson herself. Please note, I'm not arguing that this is a grey area in which we should act in accordance with her preferences; rather, it seems to me that regardless of the request, this is a subject that does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. It's possible that I'm missing something; a well-formed "keep" vote would need to include a list of several reliable sources, with significant focus on her (as opposed to merely quoting her). The quotes-as-an-expert help, but in the absence of anything besides the Washington Post article that are substantially about her or her work or focus on her beyond a short quotation, and in strong publications, this should be a "delete." -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the matter is resolved so be it but a lot of people are talking about her relevance or lack there of, she does have two published articles on Playboy.com https://www.playboy.com/read/bert-ernie-sesame-street-gay and https://www.playboy.com/read/disney-princess-problems-kristen-bell I don't think anyone mentioned these so just FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwilightFluttershy (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Remove the BLP-inappropriate content, and this article is just "Jenny Nicholson makes videos, mostly about Star Wars and Disney". Not notable, and there is not enough information to support an article beyond a stub. Smurrayinchester 12:47, 11 July 2019 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jenny_Nicholson&oldid=906298093"