Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Lee Rose

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 keep as in keep seperate. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Lee Rose

Procedural note: This AfD was originally listed on September 20, and closed out of process by a non-admin on September 24 as, in effect, a "keep with further merger discussion to continue on the article's talk page." [1] While the discussion, as it currently stands, makes it a near certainty that this AfD will be closed as a keep or merge to lonelygirl15, the improper closure effectively nullified all the merge votes in this debate and turned them into keep votes. As such, I'm relisting this AfD to resume debate and allow for an admin to make the final decision at whatever time he or she feels is appropriate. As this is a procedural relisting, I have no further comment beyond what I have already posted below. --Aaron 21:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

People are unofficially discussing deletion of this article at Talk:lonelygirl15 and the possibility of merging at Talk:Jessica Lee Rose. This nomination is intended to end the irrelevant meta-arguments about whether it should be sent to AfD by invoking the official process. (Note: if all editors unofficially discussing this were clearly independent editors, WP:SNOWBALL might apply. However, since most are IP addresses that can't be uniquely identified, the outcome is not so certain.) As this is a procedural nomination, I abstain from the discussion. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Merge to lonelygirl15. No notability outside of the lonelygirl15 lark. Maybe CAA can do something with her, maybe not. But no basis for separate article now. Bwithh 21:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Jessica Lee Rose is the lead actress in a video series that has millions of viewers, not to mention a gigantic amount of media attention (Google news count for Jessica Rose or Jessica Lee Rose is a total of over 400 articles [2] [3]). Due to lonelygirl15, she has become a big star. She's done numerous interviews now and has even been on Jay Leno. There's a strange argument that lonelygirl15 was the only notable thing she's done so far and therefore shouldn't have a page. That makes no sense. Just because an actor gains notoriety for their leading role in any single movie or TV show means they shouldn't have an article about them? Under this argument, all Big Brother (every country version) and Survivor contestants pages would be deleted. Jessica Lee Rose is arguably more well known then most of those reality show contestants with articles. That people want to delete a page about this extremely notable actress is just nonsense. She's a star now. Marriedtofilm 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC))
    — Possible single purpose account: Marriedtofilm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
    (click contribs link. Account has been active since Feb. 06. Many other topic contributions before lonelygirl15 existed. This is a personal attack without research in facts.) Marriedtofilm 22:24, September 20, 2006
    • Note to closing admin: Marriedtofilm joined on February 19, made 13 edits that day (all but three to one article), and left. He returned four months later on June 12, made four edits in the span of 36 hours or so, and left. He then returned three months after that, on September 12, and has made several dozen edits since then, all but two of which are to this article or to discussions directly related to this article. [4] I leave it to the closing admin to determine how closely this pattern of activity conforms to the definition of an SPA. --Aaron 02:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the detailed description of the numerous contributions before being active in this topic and not being SPA. And thanks for jumping to the conclusion that I'm a male. Oh, and you forgot to mention that I created two articles in February. So much for you acusatiion of "Single purpose account." Now stop the personal attacks and stick to the subject. Marriedtofilm 03:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (Marriedtofilm edit 03:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Correct Google News stats as of 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC) for "Jessica Lee Rose" are 18 unique of 166 hits total. For "Jessica Rose" (which gets false positives as well), they are 76 unique of 319. Adding "lonelygirl15" to the last search to eliminate false positives gives 66 unique of 306. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That is false. It's more than 18. Look here [5] TonyLeigh 22:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • That link doesn't use double-quotes in the search and so gets hits for Axel Rose, Jessica Simpson, and other non-"Jessica (Lee) Rose" news stories. My numbers are correct. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Saxifrage, my links do have the double quotes. Marriedtofilm 22:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
            • By "that link" I was answering TonyLeigh directly. Their link lacks double quotes. As for your own numbers, that total includes repeats. Unique Google hits are an important factor for editors who care about the Google test. Unique hits for "Jessica Rose" lonelygirl15 or "Jessica Lee Rose" total 82. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Nobody is saying a certain article is not published in more than one place. Like with alot of google news articles, the google repeats are usually articles published in different newspapers or other news services, but from the same source. For instance, if AP writes a story, frequently many newspapers will publish the same story because the editor feels it's newsworthy for their local market and/or reader base. A newspaper editor in Seattle might choose to publish an LA Times article (provided they have a contract with said paper), then that would appear as 2 articles. That over 400 times editors choose to publish an article on Jessica Lee Rose, whether it was their own original material or not, shows she has a huge amount of media attention that can't be denied.Marriedtofilm 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
                • That's nice, but I'm not arguing anything in particular. I'm just providing the numbers that editors tend to ask for during AfDs. People can do with them as they will. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
          • The numbers for Jessica Lee Rose are much higher than your claims, anyone can see that by looking at the pages and the descriptions of what those pages contain, the numbers you quoted are way off! 205.188.116.11 22:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
            • You'll have to be more specific about what "pages" you're talking about. I'm merely reporting the numbers Google returns on the searches I described. I'm not saying those number are low or high, so I don't understand why you think you need to "defend" against them. Are you saying that you think the numbers Google is reporting are too low? — Saxifrage ✎ 08:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Lonelygirl15 is the name of the ficitional character/series of videos she has been in. These videos are notable enough for mention so the star of them should also be. There are many one hit wonder pop stars who have articles (and big brother contestants too) and this is no diffrent. What about Howard Brown who is only notable for bank commericals in the UK (very popular ones though) who has his own article? This page should not be deleted. TonyLeigh 22:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is going to be an article that grows, just like the orginal lonelygirl15 article. It will allow for some of the info to be stashed elsewhere. basically, it will keep the lg15 artcile about that, and the info about the actress seperate. The orginal arguments about lonelygirl15 in the AfD's and the undelete there are all going to be made again. I think the same outcome is going to occur. Dave 22:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge- Merge with lonelygirl15. It just doesn't deserve it's own page at this time. Criptofcorbin 22:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to lonelygirl15. Her only claim to fame is a direct connection to the lonelygirl15 series. Outside of her involvement in it, which is extensively covered in its own article, there's nothing of note to say about her. WarpstarRider 22:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - She's notable enough by now, and her biographical info does not belong on the Lonelygirl article. If Wikipedia is expansive enough to include articles on reality show rejects and extremely minor "celebrities" like Libby Hoeller and Ellen Feiss, then surely there's room for an actress who has been watched by millions, appeared on Jay Leno, and will almost certainly be starring in more roles in the future. Serpent-A 23:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep arguably notable enough as lonelygirl, but might as well make both. FrozenPurpleCube 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong merge to lonelygirl15 per Bwithh. Subject is the very definition of nn except for this one incident that will be forgotten within weeks. --Aaron 01:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong merge as per Aaron above. Badbilltucker 15:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with lonelygirl. If she ever does anything else it will be easy to recreate an article for her.Jlittlet 01:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with lonelygirl15. This is a very dubious spin-off. JLR and LG15 are completely synonymous, and no separate entries are warranted at this point. Comment: When I voted eventually to keep LG15, I never imagined that that would turn out to be the trashy article which we see today. It is now completely crufty, filled with all sorts of unreliable rubbish, outright speculation and references to blog entries which respectable Wiki editors abiding by guidelines habitually ignore. Now it turns out that LG15 was but an elaborate hoax which has fooled many. Ohconfucius 01:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BIO for actors. --Tim1988 talk 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Merely your POV. It states "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field". Jessica Lee Rose is the main actress is a online soap opera that is a Internet phenomenon. 205.188.116.11 22:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • People are entitled to their point of view, especially because the point of an AfD is to solicit opinions. Also note that editors from anonymous IP addresses tend to stay uncounted by the administrator in charge of tallying the opinions, not least because they tend not to have the best grasp of the real meaning of the policies they quote. You'll have better luck if you establish a reputation as a good editor, and if you demonstrate respect for your fellows. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Since when is policy POV? --Tim1988 talk 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Also, noone who wants this page deleted has explained why they aren't also requesting deltions of pages for one hit wonder pop stars. Carl Douglas for example. Perhaps because it weakens there already weak arguments. 205.188.116.11 18:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't edit on this website, but frequently reference it, like I did when seeking information on this actor and that is my perspective so value my opinion accordingly. Deleting or merging the biography on this person doesn't seem consistent with the rest of this website. I see there are many one-hit wonders and actors who only starred in one thing who have biographies here. This actor seems to be singled out for arbitrary reasons. 206.170.104.47 20: 54 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. She is an actress seperate from the videos she's in. Her Lonelygirl15 project is Wikipedia's 9th most visited article, 8th if you don't consider the main page an article. -- Zanimum 21:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I may not agree with the videos and it's intended secrecy, but if we decide to merge this article with LonelyGirl15, we might as well merge all of the other articles regarding actors and actresses who are only known for one role. She has had roles in other movies besides LonelyGirl15. People seems to forget that "lonelygirl15" is mearly the title of the vlogs she is in, and she plays the role of "Bree", the lead role in them. --Raderick 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep She isn't just Lonelygirl15, she's a young actress. She's mentioned in dozens of newspapers, appearead on The Tonight Show, and has had a minor career as a make-up artist as well. There are thousands of actors on Wikipedia who have less prominence than JLR who simply aren't flagged for deletion for the ironic reason that nobody is paying as much attention to them as they are to her, along with a sense that just because her claim to fame hasn't been developed by a major Hollywood studio it's somehow less credible than someone who appeared in three episodes of The O.C. - dharmabum 07:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, per note at top of debate, Aaron 21:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Actress is separate from her role. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with lonelygirl15 She has not done anything notable other than those YouTube videos(which are ONLY notable because she got on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno", otherwise I would say delete both. TJ Spyke 23:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Before Jessica Lee Rose's appearance on The Tonight Show on the evening of September 15, there were already 280 Google news article listings for "Jessica Rose" and 151 for "Jessica Lee Rose" for a total of 431 (currently, the total is 494). These results were with the exact phrases in quotes and non-unique. [6] [7] Sorry, I don't know how to bring up unique results which will reduce the total numbers, probably to around 60 (as of September 20, per Saxifrage above, it was 82). But the point is she was already notable before her Tonight Show appearance. Marriedtofilm 01:27, September 25, 2006
    I consider someone notable if [s]he has over 10,000 hits at Google. I guess others have a different "Google Test" requirement, but I tend to think nobody considers someone notable for having 500 hits at Google. -- ReyBrujo 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, main Google web hits or Google News hits. I put the stats for the latter (for "Jessica Lee Rose", the Google web hits are over 30,000 [8]). But anyway, I'll refer you to the child actress Abigail Breslin who was one of the stars of the film Little Miss Sunshine. She has become very notable in the last couple of months thanks to her performance in that film and justifiably has an article here (she even had a page before most people ever heard of her). Her total Google News non-unique article hits are 248 [9]. I agree that the "Google Test" can be relative. - Marriedtofilm 03:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per TJ. Notability of the person is through her "character", not her "persona". -- ReyBrujo 01:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge --Peta 01:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete One or the other but not both. --Tbeatty 02:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the subject has received mass media press coverage and has made several television appearances, including the Jay Leno talk show. To seperate fact from fiction we should retain this article. Yamaguchi先生 03:35, 25 September 2006
  • Keep both the character and the actor should remain seperate.  ALKIVAR™ 04:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep To both, if in question. She's now a notable actress, and the lonelygirl thing is amazingly beyond notable. · XP · 04:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please like said above she is notable and over 400 articles on google news right now about her do not merge Yuckfoo 04:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is an actress, a person; the article on the character/series is naturally separate. I might agree with merging if there was absolutely nothing to say about her beyond the character/series itself, but I don't believe that's true. Everyking 04:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolGuy (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as per dharmabum and Zanimum. Robert Brockway 07:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are we going to start merging actor's articles into their most well-known roles? -->So sayeth MethnorSayeth back|Other sayethings
  • Keep. She qualifies as notable, and her role is verifiable, and even, in a way, notorious. A worthy freestanding article. Fiddle Faddle 10:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Notorious? Nobody will remember this girl in a year's time. I didn't even know who she was until the article got nominated for deletion. Just another random Internet fad. Merge to her character - sad enough that one article need be here, but she has no notability as a person, just as a character. GassyGuy 10:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't bring your own views of the future to the table. Hardly anyone goes around saying everyday of their lifes listening to Carl Douglas. If you really believe what you say (and I'm not saying you don't) then ask for a removal of his page as this one is just as notable. 205.188.116.11 18:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You're saying that a widely-known hit song that's been around for over 30 years is equivalent to a handful of internet videos that began a few months ago? That's just silly, along with all the arguments trying to compare this with people who have starred in feature films and television shows that are far more recognizable. WarpstarRider 21:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Carl Douglas is ONLY known widely for Kung Fu Fighting. That's it. His one claim to notability and fame in the entertainment world at large. He has done nothing else anywhere close the that level. So the point is if Jessica Lee Rose's page should redirect to Lonelygirl15, because that's is "the only notable thing she has done" (which is the argument for deleting her page in the first place) then Carl Douglas should redirect to the one song that has given him any notability. There is no difference in the matter. The song may have been around 30 years, so what? The man has had nothing else come close in three decades. So for you to suggest just because his one big success was many, many years ago somehow makes him more worthy of a page than Jessica Lee Rose because her one notable credit (so far) happened this year is what is what is silly. She's also got much more chance of doing something else more notable than Carl Douglas, Robin Beck et all because it's a fact those people have failed again and again to have another success over many years of failed attempts to recapture their one moment in the limelight, what the future holds for Jessica Rose is still yet unknown. 64.12.116.71 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
btw, those people are only "far more recognizable " to people who have seen and enjoyed their works, to the rest of us they are just as recognizable than Jessica Rose, or less so. 64.12.116.71 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The idea that there should be a page because "she might do something more notable" in the future is not a valid argument for having a page now. And once again, you can not compare a person who performed a #1 hit song to a person who has only appeared in a bunch of internet videos. There are actual guidelines that support articles for people like Carl Douglas. Where the guidelines stand regarding "internet actresses" with no other credentials are less clear. Until she actually does something else, she shouldn't have an article. If she does do something notable in the future to separate herself from lonelygirl15, an article can be created at that time. WarpstarRider 01:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)\*
  • I never said Wikipedia is a Crystal Ball, I said quite the opposite. However, you CAN compare someone who has starred in an online Internet show that has been seen by millions to a person who has had one major hit single. They both have had the limelight for one thing and one claim to fame. There is no difference between Carl Douglas and Jessica Rose other than one is a one shot singer and the other a one shot actress, therefore she is just as worthy of a page as he. If the wiki guidelines somehow view that as different then that is crazy. If the guidelines were than black and white surely this VFD wouldn't even be here, the page simply wouldn't have existed (or at least just simply and quickly been deleted) 64.12.116.71 11:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Your example of Carl Doulgas is flawed. Douglas's major claim to fame is "Kung Fu Fighting," but it is not his only one. His song "Dance the Kung Fu" was a top ten hit on Billboard's R&B chart. That too is pretty notable; hence, I won't be nominating Douglas for deletion. Robin Beck had a very prolific career as a background vocalist on popular hits before her success with "The First Time," which gives her notability outside of her song. If Jessica Rose ever does something comparable, this article can be recreated... but she hasn't yet. GassyGuy 15:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Aster Placed 15:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Keeping separately makes no sense at this time. She is only notable in the context of exactly one role. If she ever becomes involved in others we can always we recreate it. JoshuaZ 16:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. As I said before: consider Danny Lloyd. Pablosecca 19:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Note that there are quite a number of comments on whether to merge at Talk:Jessica Lee Rose, and they favor keeping the articles separate by a sizable margin. It's unclear to me whether all of those users also voted here. rhaas 21:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Cutting off that IP-heavy discussion and making it official is the whole point of my nominating the article. They don't count unless they voice their opinion here. This cuts out transient IP editors who have no interest in or understanding of Wikipedia as a project. Besides, counting them would be unprecedented in the extreme and would obviate the need for processes like AfD. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seperate even though this discussion really doesn't belong on Articles for deletion. RFerreira 03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Just FYI, the rationale is that an article that is "merged" ceases to exist—the information is kept, but the article gets deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge no notability outside of her lonelygirl15 role. For all of those who are bringing up one-shot film and television shows, those are far more notable as they are notable productions funded and marketed a major studio. Hbdragon88 08:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep separate per several folks above. --Myles Long 17:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
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.