Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blossom Goodchild


 * 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. The "keep" opinions don't address the relevant guideline, WP:BIO. If the subject is ever covered in some depth by reliable sources, she can have an article.  Sandstein  17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Blossom Goodchild

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable individual and internet medium. I originally nominated this article for speedy deletion as lacking notability. The creator asserts notability and a google search in Australia alone reveals 50,000 hits. Many of these seem to be from special interest sites and YouTube, I can't see that the individual in question is notable, nevertheless as an act of good faith, I've withdrawn the speedy nom and brought the matter here to AfD. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep for now I was created today, how would you know it isn't notable without giving people a few days at least to meet WP:NOTABILITY? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete can't spy any reliable sources to establish notability; most hits are to Youtube, blogs or fringe ET sites. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What is it that identifies something as a "fringe" ET site as opposed to a "mainstream" ET site? Just because you think the beliefs are "fringe" doesn't mean the issue isn't of broader interest (or firmly ensconced within pop culture).  The theme of ETs and UFOs is standard fare of mainstream TV and cinema.  Wikipedia's already a rich source of information on this stuff. Hoopes (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:SPS. Many websites, particularly in fringe fields such as this, are self-published and therefore not reliable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Youtube and blogs are basically never acceptable. If you can find reliable, non-trivial coverage in print newspapers or the like, then fair enough. If you can't then the article has not established notability and should be deleted. You say it's standard fare - I agree, so go find some reliable sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A point well taken. There are many cultural phenomena whose success on YouTube subsequently generates coverage in major media. An example of this is the musician Tay Zonday, whose song Chocolate Rain made him a media phenomenon. (BTW, your link to reliable sources is not what you may have thought it was...) Hoopes (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha! Yes, well caught... it should of course be reliable sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm the original author of the article. I do appreciate why the article was flagged for speedy deletion, since this would be entirely appropriate if the entry were created for the purposes of self-promotion or to make a non-notable individual seem notable. However, the rapidity with which the issue of Blossom Goodchild's channelled message has generated hits in an increasing number of YouTube videos and websites suggests to me that the phenomenon is notable. One of the best things about Wikipedia is its ability to distribute accurate information quickly. I anticipate that this entry will grow along with the specific phenomenon it describes. As I note above the "event" is already internationally known to a large and growing audience. As a regular Wikipedia user, my first response to encountering the increased media buzz was to ask the question, "Who's Blossom Goodchild"? I think there is a tremendous benefit when a Google search yields a worthwhile Wikipedia entry with links to relevant background information. If the issue remains "hot", users will add additional information. Hoopes (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Hoopes provides a good case for considering Blossom as a cultural phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sblonder (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Cultural phenomenon?" Oh please, this is obviously a means of promotion for a woman associated with the extremely lucrative New Age market. Let's not add to the irrational hysteria by granting her an article in what is supposed to be a respected and informative encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.3.42 (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the link to her blog takes you directly to ads for a number of her New Age books, renders this article laughable to say the least. I advocate speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.3.42 (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As the author of the article, I beg to differ. I do not see this article as a "means of promotion", rather as a contribution towards critical evaluation.  The fact that her cited blog contains ads for her New Age books is relevant to the issue that her channelled announcement may be an example of undercover marketing.  I don't think that one can anticipate that the average readers of Wikipedia will view her ads any differently than you have.  I would object myself if the entry were modified to include references to her books as evidence of her being "notable" as if their existence were sufficient for defining that.  Just because someone has published a book does not mean that they are "notable", which seems to be the issue in deciding for or against deletion.  Furthermore, there are thousands of individuals in Wikipedia (people who main reaons for being "notable" is that they are well-known celebrities, for example) whose entries may be interpreted as "ads" for promoting their financial success.  I think an appraisal of whether someone is "notable" or not must be independent of whether a Wikipedia entry promotes what they are selling or not.  Think about Paris Hilton, for example. Hoopes (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, however I see no need for this article to be sustained following October 14th (which, I think most rationally minded individuals agree, will pass without incidence.) Her channeled 'prediction' that extra terrestrials will come to earth on the 14th is the source of her hype, and when it fails miserably, she will lose all interest and notability. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortonrainey (talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, would you be willing to push that to October 20 or so? How about October 31 Halloween? I think that there are a lot of similarities between BG's channeled message and premonitions of a Marian apparition. The true believers may well experience something that the rest of us don't acknowledge as "real", but that would be a "notable" event, don't you think? It took about a century or so for the fantastic story of Jesus to become gospel. I'm willing to give BG's extraterrestrial spacecraft a couple of weeks. (A Google search on "Blossom Goodchild" right now yields almost 20,000 hits.) For me, a bigger philosophical question is whether the Wikipedia entry itself is a factor is spinning this new "reality". Hoopes (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No Hoopes, that won't do. You need to read WP:CRYSTAL. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, then scratch that. Regardless of what happens, I still assert that BG has already become notable as a result of the current buzz.  (Google hits are up to 20,500 today.)  She has become a permanent element of UFO folklore.  That doesn't take much in the way of "hard" evidence, as indicated by the examples of Area 51 and its supposed alien autopsy, or the Betty and Barney Hill abduction. Aren't you concerned that deleting this article will fuel UFO conspiracy theory? Hoopes  (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Google hits do not confer notability. Independent reliable sources are needed to do that; finding such sources for Betty and Barney Hill is easy. I suggest that this is not true of Blossom Goodchild, as shown by your inability to provide any. Simply stating that she is notable and pointing to Google or Youtube is simply not enough. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize that Google doesn't confer notability, but the fact that the hit count for "Blossom Goodchild" went up by almost 10,000 pages in the past 48 hours is noteworthy. Someone out there thinks she's worth knowing about, at least right now.  I like to think that Wikipedia can provide a tiny island of objectivity in the midst of a raging sea of hype. Hoopes (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm beginning to enjoy all this hype, it provides an interesting insight into today's culture. I agree that deleting the article may distort clarity as to who Goodchild is, and her predictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortonrainey (talk • contribs) 11:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It raises the very interesting question of whether there are "notable" people and events who are precipitated out of events that occur in the blogosphere without being recognized or covered by the mainstream press. Should hardcopy print media be considered more legitimate than digital media?  Hoopes (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEPI think its ace, keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.93.141 (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You may well do, but that is a WP:ILIKEIT argument. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, lacks reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep! the popularity of her utube vidoes alone are a viable indicator of interest and support from the general public. I wanted to know who she was and I came here to Wikipedia to find out; my experience is an example that this entry is valid.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.160.150 (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2008 (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.