- 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. Tawker ( talk) 07:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Eden Wood ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am not comfortable with this article, which I think violates the spirit of child protection and BLP . That her family is having her do these things, and that they are legal, does not make it appropriate to immortalize hem in an encyclopedia. Our standards in these respects are and ought to be higher than the news media. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Eeeeewww. I see your point. But on the other hand, I don't know - it is documented and technically notable/seems to pass notability. Personally - VOM. But putting that aside, definitely seems she passes GNG and other stuff... the information is available easily out there. At the risk of incurring howls that I'm being all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, would it be as offensive if it was about a well-established child actor such as Quvenzhané Wallis or a Royal baby such as Prince George of Cambridge? I'm no fan of child beauty pageants (or indeed beauty pageants in general) but despite the fact that this article is nausea-inducing, I don't think it should be censored just for being about a child who's received attention, publicity, and is linked to various things beyond the pageants. Mabalu ( talk) 00:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am not proposing to delete the article about the pageant, which I agree is notable, and should be covered, though without naming the children. Passing the GNG is not sufficient for keeping an article, because there are other policies involved. The basic one here is WP:BLP, whose principle is do no harm. The child is used in this pageant without her informed consent, being too young to give it. Her parents have presumably given it for her, and normally they are assumed to be doing it in the young person's best interests. But we make our own judgements: if we think it is a matter of exploiting a child for secually-related purposes for commercial gain, we can perfectly well decide not to be any part of it. If it should be legal in the jurisdiction where it is occurs, which quite frankly I find incredible, that's irrelevant to whether we want to cover it. If I followed my own preference, I would have immediately deleted it as I have power to do , and asked for oversight, on the grounds of BLP. Since I am aware not everyone would agree, I think it wrong to use admin powers in that way just on the basis of my own feelings, but to ask for a community decision. Of course, if any other admin agrees with me one this, and does delete it on BLP, I will certainly support them. (asking for approval of this as an admin matter would have been an alternative course, but I think we make better decisions at AfD than at the admin noticeboards) If it were a child actor known primarily for playing sexualized roles, yes, I would support deletion, just as I would for a child induced into overtly sexual activity. If you claim this is not overly sexualized, this is personal judgment in either direction, and we will have to go by the community. (That the UK permits this given their other attitudes in the general subject I think a weird anomoly. I consider the UK laws on what it considers child pornography go very far into what I do not consider pornography. and are in their operation sometimes harsh to an unjustified extent. And I am willing to accept almost anything as legitimate sexual activity between young people. This is not among young people, but commercial exploitation. )
DGG (
talk ) 01:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Um - are you saying that I am claiming "this is not overly sexualised?" If so, then I am kind of offended by that - I've made my distaste for the whole thing pretty clear. Frankly, I think these pageants are vile and exploitative and to be honest I'm sick of the Fashion AFD category getting all the 19-year old "beauty queens" whose main talent seems to be prancing around in bikinis and stripper shoes dumped in here as IMO they really don't have much to do with fashion, but I accept this one being here due to the associated clothing line. I haven't voted either way because personally, I don't like the fact the page exists AT ALL and personally, I think it shouldn't be here, but on the other hand, I'm not going to argue for deletion just because it seems it would boil down to
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even though I REALLY don't like it.
Mabalu (
talk) 02:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- My meaning was "oversexualized to be appropriate for an article about a child in WP". We are not disagreeing that it is oversexualized by decent human standards, tho apparently not for the press and video standards in her country or the US. At some degree of that, I think you agree that we would not include a child, but as I said the level is a matter of judgement. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Um - are you saying that I am claiming "this is not overly sexualised?" If so, then I am kind of offended by that - I've made my distaste for the whole thing pretty clear. Frankly, I think these pageants are vile and exploitative and to be honest I'm sick of the Fashion AFD category getting all the 19-year old "beauty queens" whose main talent seems to be prancing around in bikinis and stripper shoes dumped in here as IMO they really don't have much to do with fashion, but I accept this one being here due to the associated clothing line. I haven't voted either way because personally, I don't like the fact the page exists AT ALL and personally, I think it shouldn't be here, but on the other hand, I'm not going to argue for deletion just because it seems it would boil down to
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even though I REALLY don't like it.
Mabalu (
talk) 02:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am not proposing to delete the article about the pageant, which I agree is notable, and should be covered, though without naming the children. Passing the GNG is not sufficient for keeping an article, because there are other policies involved. The basic one here is WP:BLP, whose principle is do no harm. The child is used in this pageant without her informed consent, being too young to give it. Her parents have presumably given it for her, and normally they are assumed to be doing it in the young person's best interests. But we make our own judgements: if we think it is a matter of exploiting a child for secually-related purposes for commercial gain, we can perfectly well decide not to be any part of it. If it should be legal in the jurisdiction where it is occurs, which quite frankly I find incredible, that's irrelevant to whether we want to cover it. If I followed my own preference, I would have immediately deleted it as I have power to do , and asked for oversight, on the grounds of BLP. Since I am aware not everyone would agree, I think it wrong to use admin powers in that way just on the basis of my own feelings, but to ask for a community decision. Of course, if any other admin agrees with me one this, and does delete it on BLP, I will certainly support them. (asking for approval of this as an admin matter would have been an alternative course, but I think we make better decisions at AfD than at the admin noticeboards) If it were a child actor known primarily for playing sexualized roles, yes, I would support deletion, just as I would for a child induced into overtly sexual activity. If you claim this is not overly sexualized, this is personal judgment in either direction, and we will have to go by the community. (That the UK permits this given their other attitudes in the general subject I think a weird anomoly. I consider the UK laws on what it considers child pornography go very far into what I do not consider pornography. and are in their operation sometimes harsh to an unjustified extent. And I am willing to accept almost anything as legitimate sexual activity between young people. This is not among young people, but commercial exploitation. )
DGG (
talk ) 01:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think this page should be deleted. Sure you might not like some of the stuff she's done, but that doesn't mean it's grounds for deletion. She has an acting career, her own TV show, fans, and even music. Why would you delete all that just because of how she started? There's a lot of pages on Wiki of things people don't like, but you don't just delete them. P.S. Sorry I undid your proposed deletion DGG, I'm new to editing and didn't see a way to discuss things other than in article edit comments (finally found it). WickedFabala ( talk) 03:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not unsympathetic to the argument DGG raises here. I'm not any more a fan of the career path she's been made to undergo. But the subject is not known for a single event. She's not a non-public person. We strive to avoid prolonging victimization, but the subject here isn't strictly a victim. This isn't a criminal act or case. The subject's actions have been legal and the legally appropriate consent has been given. DGG, I, or any given Wikipedia editor may disagree with the appropriateness of that consent and that legality, but it is what it is. Even under BLP, it is not Wikipedia's role to right great wrongs. I simply do not see a policy-based cause for deletion here. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 16:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- My point is precisely that she is a victim, whatever may be allowed by the laws of her country. The policy is involved is human decency. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- She's not a victim. Her parents have put her in pageants, TV shows, and movies and that makes her a victim? It's not about human decency because nothing bad has happened here. WickedFabala ( talk) 03:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Sorry but the article's just cringe worthy If I'm totally honest, I have to agree with DGG tho that it is sexual exploitation IMHO, Sorry but I say delete per BLP. - →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 23:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete We have fairly high inclusion rules for minors with very good reason. People who are under 10 really need to be without a doubt notable to have articles. This person is not such, and there is no reason to have an article on her. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I would have to concur with Johnpacklambert's position. If there is any question of notability of children we should err on the side of caution. Finnegas ( talk) 12:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. There are not many notability Miyole ( talk) 16:41, 19 April 2014 (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.
- 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. Tawker ( talk) 07:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Eden Wood ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am not comfortable with this article, which I think violates the spirit of child protection and BLP . That her family is having her do these things, and that they are legal, does not make it appropriate to immortalize hem in an encyclopedia. Our standards in these respects are and ought to be higher than the news media. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Eeeeewww. I see your point. But on the other hand, I don't know - it is documented and technically notable/seems to pass notability. Personally - VOM. But putting that aside, definitely seems she passes GNG and other stuff... the information is available easily out there. At the risk of incurring howls that I'm being all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, would it be as offensive if it was about a well-established child actor such as Quvenzhané Wallis or a Royal baby such as Prince George of Cambridge? I'm no fan of child beauty pageants (or indeed beauty pageants in general) but despite the fact that this article is nausea-inducing, I don't think it should be censored just for being about a child who's received attention, publicity, and is linked to various things beyond the pageants. Mabalu ( talk) 00:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am not proposing to delete the article about the pageant, which I agree is notable, and should be covered, though without naming the children. Passing the GNG is not sufficient for keeping an article, because there are other policies involved. The basic one here is WP:BLP, whose principle is do no harm. The child is used in this pageant without her informed consent, being too young to give it. Her parents have presumably given it for her, and normally they are assumed to be doing it in the young person's best interests. But we make our own judgements: if we think it is a matter of exploiting a child for secually-related purposes for commercial gain, we can perfectly well decide not to be any part of it. If it should be legal in the jurisdiction where it is occurs, which quite frankly I find incredible, that's irrelevant to whether we want to cover it. If I followed my own preference, I would have immediately deleted it as I have power to do , and asked for oversight, on the grounds of BLP. Since I am aware not everyone would agree, I think it wrong to use admin powers in that way just on the basis of my own feelings, but to ask for a community decision. Of course, if any other admin agrees with me one this, and does delete it on BLP, I will certainly support them. (asking for approval of this as an admin matter would have been an alternative course, but I think we make better decisions at AfD than at the admin noticeboards) If it were a child actor known primarily for playing sexualized roles, yes, I would support deletion, just as I would for a child induced into overtly sexual activity. If you claim this is not overly sexualized, this is personal judgment in either direction, and we will have to go by the community. (That the UK permits this given their other attitudes in the general subject I think a weird anomoly. I consider the UK laws on what it considers child pornography go very far into what I do not consider pornography. and are in their operation sometimes harsh to an unjustified extent. And I am willing to accept almost anything as legitimate sexual activity between young people. This is not among young people, but commercial exploitation. )
DGG (
talk ) 01:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Um - are you saying that I am claiming "this is not overly sexualised?" If so, then I am kind of offended by that - I've made my distaste for the whole thing pretty clear. Frankly, I think these pageants are vile and exploitative and to be honest I'm sick of the Fashion AFD category getting all the 19-year old "beauty queens" whose main talent seems to be prancing around in bikinis and stripper shoes dumped in here as IMO they really don't have much to do with fashion, but I accept this one being here due to the associated clothing line. I haven't voted either way because personally, I don't like the fact the page exists AT ALL and personally, I think it shouldn't be here, but on the other hand, I'm not going to argue for deletion just because it seems it would boil down to
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even though I REALLY don't like it.
Mabalu (
talk) 02:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- My meaning was "oversexualized to be appropriate for an article about a child in WP". We are not disagreeing that it is oversexualized by decent human standards, tho apparently not for the press and video standards in her country or the US. At some degree of that, I think you agree that we would not include a child, but as I said the level is a matter of judgement. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Um - are you saying that I am claiming "this is not overly sexualised?" If so, then I am kind of offended by that - I've made my distaste for the whole thing pretty clear. Frankly, I think these pageants are vile and exploitative and to be honest I'm sick of the Fashion AFD category getting all the 19-year old "beauty queens" whose main talent seems to be prancing around in bikinis and stripper shoes dumped in here as IMO they really don't have much to do with fashion, but I accept this one being here due to the associated clothing line. I haven't voted either way because personally, I don't like the fact the page exists AT ALL and personally, I think it shouldn't be here, but on the other hand, I'm not going to argue for deletion just because it seems it would boil down to
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even though I REALLY don't like it.
Mabalu (
talk) 02:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am not proposing to delete the article about the pageant, which I agree is notable, and should be covered, though without naming the children. Passing the GNG is not sufficient for keeping an article, because there are other policies involved. The basic one here is WP:BLP, whose principle is do no harm. The child is used in this pageant without her informed consent, being too young to give it. Her parents have presumably given it for her, and normally they are assumed to be doing it in the young person's best interests. But we make our own judgements: if we think it is a matter of exploiting a child for secually-related purposes for commercial gain, we can perfectly well decide not to be any part of it. If it should be legal in the jurisdiction where it is occurs, which quite frankly I find incredible, that's irrelevant to whether we want to cover it. If I followed my own preference, I would have immediately deleted it as I have power to do , and asked for oversight, on the grounds of BLP. Since I am aware not everyone would agree, I think it wrong to use admin powers in that way just on the basis of my own feelings, but to ask for a community decision. Of course, if any other admin agrees with me one this, and does delete it on BLP, I will certainly support them. (asking for approval of this as an admin matter would have been an alternative course, but I think we make better decisions at AfD than at the admin noticeboards) If it were a child actor known primarily for playing sexualized roles, yes, I would support deletion, just as I would for a child induced into overtly sexual activity. If you claim this is not overly sexualized, this is personal judgment in either direction, and we will have to go by the community. (That the UK permits this given their other attitudes in the general subject I think a weird anomoly. I consider the UK laws on what it considers child pornography go very far into what I do not consider pornography. and are in their operation sometimes harsh to an unjustified extent. And I am willing to accept almost anything as legitimate sexual activity between young people. This is not among young people, but commercial exploitation. )
DGG (
talk ) 01:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think this page should be deleted. Sure you might not like some of the stuff she's done, but that doesn't mean it's grounds for deletion. She has an acting career, her own TV show, fans, and even music. Why would you delete all that just because of how she started? There's a lot of pages on Wiki of things people don't like, but you don't just delete them. P.S. Sorry I undid your proposed deletion DGG, I'm new to editing and didn't see a way to discuss things other than in article edit comments (finally found it). WickedFabala ( talk) 03:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not unsympathetic to the argument DGG raises here. I'm not any more a fan of the career path she's been made to undergo. But the subject is not known for a single event. She's not a non-public person. We strive to avoid prolonging victimization, but the subject here isn't strictly a victim. This isn't a criminal act or case. The subject's actions have been legal and the legally appropriate consent has been given. DGG, I, or any given Wikipedia editor may disagree with the appropriateness of that consent and that legality, but it is what it is. Even under BLP, it is not Wikipedia's role to right great wrongs. I simply do not see a policy-based cause for deletion here. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 16:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- My point is precisely that she is a victim, whatever may be allowed by the laws of her country. The policy is involved is human decency. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- She's not a victim. Her parents have put her in pageants, TV shows, and movies and that makes her a victim? It's not about human decency because nothing bad has happened here. WickedFabala ( talk) 03:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Sorry but the article's just cringe worthy If I'm totally honest, I have to agree with DGG tho that it is sexual exploitation IMHO, Sorry but I say delete per BLP. - →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 23:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete We have fairly high inclusion rules for minors with very good reason. People who are under 10 really need to be without a doubt notable to have articles. This person is not such, and there is no reason to have an article on her. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I would have to concur with Johnpacklambert's position. If there is any question of notability of children we should err on the side of caution. Finnegas ( talk) 12:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. There are not many notability Miyole ( talk) 16:41, 19 April 2014 (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.