Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Jade


 * 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. The consensus is she notable also outside of the college scandal. (non-admin closure) Tymon. r   Do you have any questions?  07:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Olivia Jade

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not sure this person is notable beyond the scandal about her parents, otherwise this seems largely a hit page. Regardless, if she is notable, which I don't think she is from the fact she isn't notable outside of what her parents did, this should be substantially cut down to eliminate BLP issues. Isingness (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

XavierItzm (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:BASIC.  Social media celebrity and spokesperson for Amazon. YouTube channel that, by February 2018, had more than a million followers.  Instagram account which also accumulated more than a million followers. Commercial endorsements for Amazon, SmileDirectClub, and other companies.  Coverage from 2018 and 2017 (i.e., not this year) from Today, W Magazine, AOL, Yahoo News, Yahoo (separately).  Plus, then you have the massive coverage from this year, which is for entirely separate causes.  Clearly meets WP:GNG.  * Keep -  Meets WP:BASIC.  Social media celebrity and spokesperson for Amazon. YouTube channel that, by February 2018, had more than a million followers.  Instagram account which also accumulated more than a million followers. Commercial endorsements for Amazon, SmileDirectClub, and other companies.  Coverage from 2018 and 2017 (i.e., not this year) from Today, W Magazine, AOL, Yahoo News, Yahoo (separately).  Plus, then you have the massive coverage from this year, which is for entirely separate causes.  Clearly meets WP:GNG.
 * Speedy Keep Subject of article has received WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS which predates the current scandal.  WP:BLP1E is crested. Chetsford (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – I was under the impression that this article had already existed prior to the scandal, but I see now that it was created in the wake of the coverage about it. I think it is debatable either way. There is a large amount of coverage from earlier than March 2019... very weak keep. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 14:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Lori Loughlin, but do not delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It is crucial for the American citizenry to understand what takes place in colleges and universities throughout the country. The privilege of being wealthy, the “pay to play” scheme, must be exposed for further investigation and analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:100:A92E:6DD6:C7A:9DE0:6500 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why delete the article? if the information is accurate, the rich and famous should not have more extra benefits!!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.213.235 (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep very extensive recent coverage in WP:RS, coupled with past coverage (over the past four years) in reliable publications means she is notable. Examples prior to current coverage:
 * Wired, March 2018 YouTube and Pinterest Influencers Almost Never Disclose Marketing Relationships
 * People, October 2017: Beauty Influencer Olivia Jade Says Mom Lori Loughlin Keeps Telling Her 'Less Is More
 * W Magazine, January 2018: Lori Loughlin's Teen Daughters Have Nearly a Million Instagram Followers
 * Today.com, July 2015: Lori Loughlin's teenage daughter Olivia is her mini-me — see the cute photos
 * Refinery29.com, January 2017: Full House's Aunt Becky Is The Real Life Mom Of A Beauty Vlogger
 * Yahoo news, August 2018: Celebrity kid called 'spoiled' and 'privileged brat' after saying she's going to college for 'game days' and 'partying
 * ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Regardless of the fact that the content of the page was created out of necessity because a redirect wasn’t doing it justice, and how I couldn’t care less about this scandal, she has significant coverage dating back months. It’s not about what’s in the sources it’s that they’re there (I hate that policy but that’s the policy). Article simply needs to be rewritten entirely. Trillfendi (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree above that this page needs to be rewritten. This young girl is definitely notable even outside of the scandal. Millions of followers on social media, a speaker for Amazon, etc. Tinton5 (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is mean-spirited and exists solely to embarrass its subject. It's full of tabloid-worthy innuendo and lots of gossip vaguely related to a court case where the subject isn't charged with any wrongdoing. The editors who have permission to edit the article aren't taking sufficient steps to fix it, therefore the article should not exist. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. "The article is mean-spirited" - While it's true the biography principally consists of information that reflects poorly on its subject, this is simply the reality of either (a) her life, or, (b) how WP:RS choose to frame and report on her life. WP reflects how people are presented in RS, not how we wish they were presented. She may spend every weekend feeding cotton candy to homeless kittens, but we are limited to chronicling those of her biographical moments that receive WP:SIGCOV in RS. "editors who have permission to edit the article aren't taking sufficient steps to fix it" - How do you think it should be "fixed"? If you mean accurate and reliably sourced information should be purged, we don't really do that here. Chetsford (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind welcome. To your second point, one example would be the article's statement that "Olivia Jade was confused about how to fill out a university application." Her alleged confusion was about filling out an app under the special circumstances arranged by her consultant and parents. Wikipedia's discussion of this is meant to be insulting, and is misleading without context. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're free to suggest that edit on the Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I invite you to read WP:NOTCLEANUP, if the sources are reliable then we go by them. If the reliable sources are slanted towards one viewpoint, we balance it with the opposing viewpoint using other reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the article section about the game show. I read the item you linked me to, and I believe your Biographies of Living People policy overrides it. This girl is getting a lot of online harassment over the indictment, including in the last section of this article, which is just a list of tawdry non-stories strung together to swipe at the girl. Is there really encyclopedic value in her being on a boat with friends whose parents work for USC at the time the indictment was released? LetsGoSurfing (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article does need work to create a neutral view, and to be less of a 'hit piece', as you say. However, as was widely reported, her family allegedly fraudulently acquired admission for her to USC. The fact that she was on the boat of the chairman of the USC board at the time of the indictment is plainly part of that story, and was widely reported in numerous reliable sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're talking about what her family did, not what she did. Facts still need to come out, but it's fully plausible that she is a victim here. I suppose we will disagree about the boat story, which only proved she had befriended someone with a highly placed parent. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Extensive coverage has been found on the subject to meet WP:BASIC. The other option would be to merge the info into Lori Loughlin as there is no questioning the notability under that context. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per ThatMontrealIP.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep subject meets WP:BASIC at the very least. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Help me understand how BASIC (a guideline) trumps BLP (a policy) and all of its subparts, including BLPGOSSIP? LetsGoSurfing (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BLP is a content guideline, not an inclusion guideline. It has a lot of influence over what we put in articles about living people; it has a lot less to say about whether we have those articles to begin with. The threshold question here isn't whether having an article about her would itself be a BLP violation, as articles cannot by themselves, by their very existence, violate BLP. It's whether she is notable independent of the recent arrest of her parents for what they allegedly did to get her into college. And, as I just !voted below, I think she is. She had gotten some coverage as an influencer before this (I agree that having famous parents didn't hurt that, but that is a decision beyond the reach of Wikipedia inclusion policy). The issue after this AfD is closed as keep (which it seems to be heading for) is for us as a community to write and edit the article in strict conformance with policies like WP:UNDUE, WP:RS (which it seems we are at the moment, from my look at the citations) and, yes, BLP. The community consensus has been that the likelihood that an article will be vandalized, be frequently edited to attack a living person or used as a pretext for going off on tangents is not considered a sufficient rationale for deletion. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "BLP is a content guideline." No it isn't. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLPDELETE: "Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability) ..." (emphasis mine). To me that means that notability is a separate question, especially because the section goes on to say that poorly sourced or unsourced attack pages on living persons can be deleted on those grounds but only if the idea is to start from scratch after deletion. WP:BLP1E is the only sub-BLP policy that explicitly addresses inclusion, and while I think you did try to bring it up earlier the consensus is clearly that that does not apply here, and it seems like you've understandably dropped it. And as for "No it isn't", while a contradiction can sometimes be an argument all by itself, usually it isn't. To convince me that you're right, you'll need to explain why you think I'm wrong. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't break your arm patting me on the head. You called BLP a guideline, it's a policy. Since we disagree about that, we have nothing else to discuss. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, you're right, I did say "guideline". I correct that error retroactively. But that changes nothing else. I still await your explanation as to why everything else I said was wrong. And while you're at this task of yours, I commend WP:BLUDGEON to your attention. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I think she's independently notable as an influencer. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Speaking as an early contributor to WP:BLP policy, it seems to meet our expectations of a person who has (1) sought public notoriety (made her living as an "influencer" with the exposure level akin to a member of congress), and (2) actively participated in a scandal by taking pictures purportedly falsely showing herself to be involved in crew, and (3) knowingly participated in game show fraud. This is not a victim. It's copiously sourced, although some are tabloid gossip. But tabloid gossip is her source of income. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
 * "This is not a victim." That's certainly the conclusion one would glean from reading the article, but your second and third points are purely a product of this woman's trial via internet, where an accusation is tantamount to guilt. Is that how Wikipedia works too? To your first point, there was no article until the scandal. This article is a product of a pitchfork wielding mob, not responsible and neutral reporting. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "[T]here was no article until the scandal." The timing of an article's creation has no bearing on BLP's relevance here, unless, as I've noted above, you are arguing that this comes under BLP1E, which you seem to have prudently stopped doing. Many times we have only started articles on people who had met our notability criteria for a long time prior to an event, usually not related to their notability, that thrust them further into the spotlight. Usually, alas, it is their deaths. After the Valhalla train crash, for instance, we came to realize that two of the six victims, Robert Dirks and Walter Liedtke, were notable, and we started articles on them. More recently, we didn't have articles on some Nobel Prize-winning scientists until they won their prizes, scientists who would have met our notability standards before except for no one having taken the time to create them. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC) (belatedly signing)


 * Keep Independently notable and a public figure outside of the college scandal. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of things wrong with this article but the solution is to fix them. Deleting seems overkill. My arguments (which I think match WP policy or at least don't contradict it.) 1) Clearly in the public interest. Or maybe I meant the public is clearly interested. 2) Plenty of previous web presence because of her blogging. Seems to make money from it. I guess the new termonology is influencer. 3) Being notorious because of a scandal is not listed as one of the reasons for deletion. The reason for being well known seems irrelevent. This is a public figure people will want to know about. The page should exist. (Apologies for not understanding and using formal WP terminology.)Zencuke (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Olivia has plenty of notability outside of the scandal – to the point where there is WP:UNDUE weight on the scandal (it's two thirds of the article, we shouldn't slant it towards recent events). You are correct that BLP is a policy. However, BLP is not itself grounds for deletion when the issues can be easily fixed, and the substance of Daniel's argument still applies. That the article was created only during the scandal is a pure red herring; just because she happened to get enough attention from someone willing to create an article does not at all affect her notability. I invite you to be WP:BOLD and edit the article to address the due weight and BLP issues, and I am sure you will easily find others willing to help you. But we are not going to delete an article just because it has a problem that can be fixed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the "Keep and Fix" voters are doing much to actually fix the article. If you aren't going to fix it, if has to be deleted. Every second this tripe remains up, a real person is affected. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. We all have limited time and (perhaps more importantly) limited knowledge about this area. Since you seem more concerned about it, why don't you go ahead and fix it? You seem to know the relevant policies, after all. The actions of the editors here is another red herring.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My existing activity on the article's talk page seems to have escaped your attention. Regardless, your suggestion is Orwellian. I'm not the one voting to keep this. You're the one saying it will be fixed. Stand behind your words and fix it. It's not enough to assume someone else will clean up your mess, Keep voters. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "your mess" – wrong. The great majority of keep !voters (including me; why the !: this is not a vote) had no involvement in making this article. Casting aspersions of "orwellian" does your argument no favors. Wikipedia is built by volunteers like you, with emphasis on "volunteer". At this point, there is basically zero chance that consensus will be for deletion, so this is the outcome regardless.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Being a volunteer does not absolve one of responsibility for their choices and acts. The Keep voters are accountable for the continued retention of this terrible article. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are responsible for keeping the article, but not its current content, nor inhibiting an overhaul. I am not sure if you noticed, but I did remove a poorly-sourced assertion here. Instead of pointing fingers, you should look for specific, concrete ways to improve the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My existing activity on the article's talk page seems to have escaped your attention. Regardless, your suggestion is Orwellian. I'm not the one voting to keep this. You're the one saying it will be fixed. Stand behind your words and fix it. It's not enough to assume someone else will clean up your mess, Keep voters. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy - the question of Delete/Keep is separate from the question of quality. The most salacious article in the world will be kept if it's about something notable. Similarly, the most well-written and meticulously referenced article on WP will be deleted if it's about something that's not notable. Whether or not that's fair, that's how it is. You can make suggestions to change WP policies, however, at WP:VP. Chetsford (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw it. But you haven't edited the article itself. Don't be afraid to! I never promised that I myself would fix it, nor that any other particular person would, so don't put words in my mouth. On Wikipedia, the fundamental premise is that articles are built by volunteers. So this article will be fixed by volunteers. Either do so yourself, or be patient. With that claim removed, I don't see any outrageously false information in it since it seems well-grounded in sources – the problem of recentism is separate from verifiability. Calling my suggestion "orwellian", on the other hand, is not true. This has no relation to Animal Farm or any of his other works, nor its themes. Rehashing your viewpoint will do nothing, zero, to convince everyone else. You're wasting your breath when you could be spending this time fixing this article. I'm not going to continue debating it; I was replying for your benefit, so you could better understand how Wikipedia works. But it's clear that it's a waste of time to try to educate you on that, at least for me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Doublethink. In parting, I sincerely thank you for adding the "recentism" tag to the article. That's more than most of the Keep voters have done to try to help. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "In parting, I sincerely thank you for adding the "recentism" tag to the article. That's more than most of the Keep voters have done to try to help." Or, indeed, the Delete !voters too, apparently. Chetsford (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is well established. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2019 (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.