Talk:Jessica Lee Rose/Archive 1

Notable
The lonlygirl15 saga has made her a big star. Stop deleting an article on a very notable person. Just because she became famous only due to lonelygirl15 doesn't make her not famous.


 * Agreed, it is time to seperate fiction from reality here kids. RFerreira 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging?
I don't think this should be merged with lonelygirl15. Surely there are other things Jessica has done or will do that deserve to be placed in her own article? -203.88.127.1 22:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * She's done nothing that is important or notable enough to have started the article before the lonelygirl15 thing, and she's done nothing of note or import since. So, no, there isn't anything else that can be said in this article. Wikipedia doesn't need articles on people who are non-notable except for some other notable thing they're involved in. Consider most band articles: the individual members almost never have their own article unless they've done more than be in that band. (I say "almost" because, either by extraordinary circumstances or because it hasn't been deleted yet, there's always some articles that contradict statements like this.) So, unless there's some compelling reason to have an article on this person now that can't be done in lonelygirl15, this should be merged and the article title removed from the system. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 23:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude ^^^^ saxifrage, your wrong. she's an actress, she deserves her own page. she's starring in some new zealand film aswell so stop pushing your own agenda.Jimbob615 00:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if she has done nothing expect play the role of lonelygirl15 that dosen't mean she can't have her own page. Actors get their own wikipedia page if they make one big movie or star in a big TV show. We don't redirect their names to the articles about the shows or films. It is the same thing. Therefore both pages (one about the actress and one about the fictional story/person) should remain. 205.188.117.10 09:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add there are other things that can be said here, not just about the lonelygirl15 thing that made her famous. If a pop star has one hit that makes them the star and then issues 15 flops, the flops are still notable for inclusion in their article. Besides, I should Imagine whatever Jessica Rose does next will recieve some kind of attention from a lot of people, just because of this fame she has found now. If her fame lasts more than 15 minites or not remains to be seen, but either way this page is a valid addition to wikipedia. 205.188.117.10 09:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the continued existence of this page: she's prominent enough to have her own page, even if of course it's a very short page, since she really has only one (very) notable thing on her CV. Cheers. Pablosecca 09:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - merging makes no sense to me. Jessica Rose is NOT lonelygirl15, she's merely the actress who plays her. Keeping the pages seperate is fairly important. Traegorn 19:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the pages should not be merged. I also think there's something ethically dubious about merging them - especially given the circumstances, Jessica Rose should definitely have a living persons protection tag, while lonelygirl15 obviously should not. Lijil 06:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little torn. Neither of the filmmakers involved with the project have their own pages, and although she is the "face" of the project, they're all about equal wrt notability (as this is respectively their only major project). So, I'd say, merge for now. It can always be re-made if she breaks into the mainstream. Lhall 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not about making it into the mainstream. Besides she already has. If interviews on MTV and The Tonight Show are not mainstream what is? The fact she is the star of Lonelygirl15 is enough to justify this page, as someone pointed out if this page goes what about the pages for all the Big Brother contestants? If you feel the creators of this are just as worthy of inclusion then make the page. There is no diffrence between Jessica Rose and a one hit wonder pop star, many have pages on Wikipedia. The reason people want this page to go is pure vanity. 74.65.39.59 18:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's merge Mark Hammill and Luke Skywalker, too! Oh, wait, no... that makes no sense. rhaas 20:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Seperate - she had a leading role in a short film

She IS the Lonelygirl15, can't you see? People try telling everybody that those two girls are same, and it still remains the hoax? Get on with it, weirdos! It IS her, just look at MILLION other pics! --Boky (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand?
If Jessica Rose was born in Maryland, why does it say she's from New Zealand? Sincerely, Thrashmeister {U|T|C} 23:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * She grew up in New Zealand and she holds New Zealand citizenship. This also evident by her accent.--James Bond 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So does she hold daul citizenship or just NZ citizenship? Hbdragon88 01:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was always under the impression that "from" meant "born in." Sincerely, Thrashmeister {U|T|C} 16:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If she grew up in New Zealand and has New Zealand citizenship, does it make her un-New Zealand because she was born in the US and possibly have dual citizenship?
 * It does mean that saying "from New Zealand" is ambiguous and imprecise. It probably ought to be changed to something more correct, like "citizen of" or something. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 05:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In this article it says she was born in NZ - -- HamedogTalk|@ 10:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

...Why does it say "New Zealand ethnicity"? This is an ethnic group? LMAO! --24.21.148.212 (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

IMDb link, and citizenship
I'm removing the IMDb link. It points to a makeup artist named Jessica Rose. From what I've seen, it's not clear whether she has an IMDb bio yet. As for her citizenship, her birth in the US automatically makes her a US citizen; assuming she has NZ citizenship, she's a dual citizen, AFAIK. — Dale Arnett 04:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

- Not necessarily true. If one already has another citizenship from a different country at the time of birth his/her parents can chose to decline a U.S citizenship. --128.196.168.135 22:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Ammani 04:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

- The New Zealand Herald states that she is a make up artist that had worked on King Kong so the odds are that  is her on IMDB. The Goober Brothers is a NZ TV show, and Hercules was filmed here, so it is definitely consistent for a younger make-up artist in NZ. As for citizenship, the NZ herald states "The New York Times also reported Bree had been identified as Rose, a New Zealand resident who is a graduate of the New York Film Academy." (emphasis mine) which suggests she doesn't have NZ citizenship, merely is effectively and "morally" a kiwi, if not actually technically one. (If she has lived here since she was 1 year old, for example, she could easily consider herself from NZ even if she isn't a NZ citizien) Tenbaset 04:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * She was in NZ for longer then 1 year. Nil Einne 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Image
When the Wired edition with JLR on the cover came out, I used it to replace the grainy low-quality screen capture from LG15. In case anyone still values that photo and can think of an aesthetically pleasing location (and size) for it in this article, here it is -. --Oakshade 02:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We may only use freely-licensed images to depict living people. Neither image is therefore appropriate to use to depict Rose.  --Yamla 16:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Blogs or vlogs?
We have a miniature revert war happening here about whether to call her videos blogs or vlogs. While they are clearly video posts, I think the problem arises because the lonelygirl15 production refers to them as blogs. Ever since the first video: First Blog / Dorkiness Prevails. I have no preference but we should probably pick one term and stick with it.--JayHenry 20:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Acuvue commercial?
Well I'm not sure if it was Rose, but the young woman reminded me of her, and I'm pretty sure it was her. Can anyone confirm this?--Surfaced 04:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing the lonelygirl15 spoiler
Is there any reason it's here? This article stands lose to nothing with its omission. Save it for the lonelygirl15 page. I took it out. Revert if you feel it's necessary 68.62.17.254 00:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's pretty important to note that she is no longer on the show and that it's pretty unlikely she'll be returning. That's a huge piece of information about her career! --JayHenry 00:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Her leaving the show is; the death of her character is not. 68.62.17.254 01:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Career
Changed "graduated" to "completed".

You can't graduate from a non degree/diploma course or "program". Red-Fox 15:56 GMT Wednesday 4th March 2009

Not B class

 * The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as is not required, but the use of tags is encouraged
 * Contains blogspot / imdb / youtube as references. Fail.


 * The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
 * Awards and Recognitions is list like. Stranded sentences in other sections. Lead too short. Fail.


 * The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 * Second. sentence, what's YouTube? What's Maxim? Probably many more. Fail.
 * So still far from B class.--Otterathome (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) TopOfTheTube is the blog that outed Jessica Rose back in 2006 and the information that was listed there has been considered as authoritative. (Update: I believe the information came from her CV in New Zealand, which has since been taken down, even from the archives. Would you prefer I linked to that instead?) Youtube citing is reliable because it physically shows her in the video. What is unreliable about that? And IMDb is reliable due to its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Have you ever tried to add info to IMDb? It doesn't just get added right away. The admins at the site overlook every new piece of data entered, so the quote there would be considered authoritative. If you still aren't happy with this, can you please find me the template to cite a television episode directly, and I will do so.
 * 2) It doesn't say anything about the flow of the content or the size of the lead. It just says that it has a defined structure, is organized into groups of related material, has a lead section, and all the sections that can reasonably included in an article of its kind. So based on that description, it does not "fail."
 * 3) Terms like YouTube and Maxim are not overly technical. They are extremely well known publications/sites that you do not have to be familiar with Jessica Rose to know what they are. Overly technical would be more along the lines of jargon that ONLY people knowledgeable with the particular topic would know about. That is not the case. Regardless though, there happen to be links to both of those articles for anyone who would like to know more.


 * --Zoeydahling (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Two sentences is not a lead, see WP:LEAD. You can't quote things via imdb, feel free to read past discussions on in though via WP:RS/N. You are looking for Template:Cite video? So what if the blog revealed her? It's not a reliable source, if it revealed the info, then you'd need another reliable source saying so.

Lists are not groups.

Not everyone knows what YouTube or Maxim is, so you would need to add 'video sharing website YouTube' and 'men's magazine Maxim'. Pointing out she appears in youtube videos is original research. Believe me, it is far off B class.--Otterathome (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this was not a reasonable basis for a downgrade from B-class to C-class. Zoey is almost entirely correct.  YouTube and Maxim are not confusing technical terms, this is not what's meant by the guideline.  A wikilink is sufficient, saying "video sharing website YouTube" etc. is unnecessary.  This trivial quibble would be laughed at in an FAC and is downright absurd for b-class review.  An editor who believes that an article containing IMDB or YouTube or Blogspot links is therefore unreliably sourced demonstrates an insufficient understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines to be making these reviews.  Context is relevant, as Zoey correctly notes.  I've worked on several Featured Articles that have links to IMDB and such sources.  The links in this article are appropriate.  None of the complaints about structure are sufficient to disqualify from B-class.  The lead can be lengthened per WP:LEAD and the awards can be formally made into a list per WP:LIST, but these are more the sort of concerns that disqualify from GA, not B-class.  I have restored the B-class rating, which was appropriate.  I find this downgrade on such flimsy grounds to be almost tendentious, and because it speaks to motives, I must note that you have been active in arguing to delete related articles, and don't seem to be active in content reviewing, making your claim that it is "far off B class" highly suspect.  Believe me, you are mistaken. --JayHenry (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your thoughts. JayHenry, I agree with you. However, in an attempt to improve the article regardless, I have expanded the lead, added the descriptive terms Otter suggested, and cited the videos that used those sources with the "Cite video" template so there is no additional confusion. I read WP:LIST and WP:EMBED, but they seem to indicate that a prose-style list is allowed so I am not sure how to improve upon what is currently there, so if someone could help me with that I would appreciate it. Once again, I appreciate both of your thoughts, and thank you JayHenry for restoring the B-class rating. --Zoeydahling (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One easy option is a bulleted list (like here) or another option is to put the awards into a table (like here). I think either could work nicely.  If you prefer prose Wikipedia style would seem to prefer them all in a single paragraph, which is okay since they're all web 2.0ish awards. --JayHenry (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jay (another lg fan) you seem to be interpreting the quality scale to your own personal views. B class articles need a lead, this article has no lead, so it's not B class. And stranded sentences is not a structure. I suggest you read the quality scale again. So back to C.--Otterathome (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. Several years ago I was interested in the LG15 phenomenon and put the page on my watchlist.  I ultimately stopped watching the show because it was terrible -- managed by incompetent amateurs.  I am pretty familiar, however, with the quality scale here at Wikipedia.  You don't seem to understand the guidelines as evidenced by your failed interpretations of sourcing, technical terms, and now lead (see LEAD) and structure.  The policy about "stranded sentences" is a fake one.  I'm not going to edit war with you about the rating, though you are obviously not very familiar with content guidelines and policies (not sure you understand the difference between the two either).  The best solution that I can see, Zoey, is to see if you can find more sources, flesh the article out just a bit, and then take it to Good article nominations where the article will get an impartial reviewer. --JayHenry (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has a lead, I just updated it. Additionally, please read here WP:LAYOUT which says "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized" (emphasis added). It does not say they need to be eliminated, just minimized, so the article does not fail in "structure" either. I will clean the article up a bit and get it to Good article nomination. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)