Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympia Nelson


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Olympia Nelson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography seems to exist only to draw attention to the subject having posed naked as a six year-old. Fails WP:GNG. The editor who created this article appears to have retired. Contested WP:PROD. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Snow keep -- This nomination is a clear instance of what happens when we ignore the advice of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When half a dozen cabient ministers go on record about images of someone, and the press covers the controversy, in detail, then that individual measures up to the inclusion criteria of GNG.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The controversy is already covered in the appropriate article. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Woah!
 * The link nominator offered did not have to be an old-fashioned uni-directional link.  It would have been far more useful to have used a wikilink to Polixeni Papapetrou. That is the article about Nelson's mother.  It was Nelson's mother who published controversial photos of her, a decade ago.  But Nelson was far more than a mere photographic model.
 * Nelson is still quite young. Nevertheless professional editors decided she could write authoritative comments on the controversial topic of the online shaming of girls and young women. I am sorry, but I don't think there is any question that this is a strong notability factor. Further, I don't think there is any question that it makes no more sense to shoehorn coverage of young adult Olympia Nelson's publicatons into her mother's article than it would make to shoehorn the article on Stella McCartney into the article on her father, Paul McCartney, or the article on Adam Cohen into the article on his father, Leonard Cohen.
 * Nominator says that Polixeni Papapetrou already covers everything notable about Nelson.  Okay.  This is just a single paragraph.  Not only does it leave out all coverage of Nelson's notable recent views, it only briefly mentions one of the politicians who offered notable comment on the original photos, where the existing article on Nelson cover the notable comments of four cabinet members.  This make nominator's assertion that only one paragraph of coverage is "appropriate" essentially a radical informationectomy.   Nominator, could you please return here, and see if you can explain why the single paragraph in the article on Nelson's mother is the "appropriate" amount of coverage of Nelson?  23:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Geo Swan (talk)


 * Lack of effective compliance with WP:BEFORE In 2013, when Nelson was in grade eleven, the editors at the Sydney Morning Herald, a leading Australian newspaper, published an article Nelson wrote, entitled: "Dark undercurrents of teenage girls' selfies: Pouty self portraits have turned boy-girl relations into a cut-throat sexual rat race".  The article says this op-ed was widely republished.  What it doesn't say, but should say, is that scholars who were looking for articulate young women who commented on the pouty selfie craze, quoted her, cited her, summarized her.   Nominator claimed the article should be deleted because it "seems to exist only to draw attention to the subject having posed naked as a six year-old."  Well, heck, the influential 2013 Sydney Morning Herald article doesn't even mention that she ever posed naked.  A nominator who complied with Before would know this.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Retired contributors? The nomination reports: "The editor who created this article appears to have retired..." Clarification please - is our nominator arguing the article should be deleted because the article creator is no longer around?  If so, I direct their attention to WP:OWN.  Once they click "save changes" the indiviudal who started an article was no more authority over it, and no more responsibility for it,, than any other member of the wikipedia.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan, I provided a link to where the controversy is covered in the photographer's article (which is the appropriate place for that information). I did not say that the section could not or should not be expanded or that its current size is appropriate. I did not say that the article should be deleted because the creator of the article has retired. I was noting their retirement in case someone felt that an editor who creates an article about six year old nude models need to be looked into more closely. I only noticed this article at all because it used as a source the personal blog of a creepy Australian fucker obsessed with naked children. I have no comment on the Sydney Morning Herald article because, well, heck, the link does not work for me. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment above refers to "the controversy". But I already pointed out to WLC that Nelson was at the center to two completely separate debates: (1) the morality of publishing naked photos of children, even if the parents were the photographer, and published the images in an art magazine; (2) the  phenomenon of girls only a few years past puberty, publishing alarmingly sexualized self-portraits.  The second debate took place five years after the first, and HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH NELSON's MOTHER.
 * writes: "I only noticed this article at all because it used as a source the personal blog of a creepy Australian fucker obsessed with naked children." Woah!  Are you really saying the real reason you nominated the article for deletion was so a creepy paedophile couldn't cite it in his creepy blog?   Isn't that a clear lapse from WP:NOTCENSORED?  We don't delete neutrally written, properly referenced material, because our emotions are engaged in an off-wiki debate.  Are you saying you were first triggered to delete the article so a creepy paedophile couldn't cite the wikipedia?  That is what it sounds like you meant.   Here are some other choices, when one finds a creepy paedophile, or white supremacist commenting on the wikipedia:
 * Sigh, walk away;
 * Check the wikipedia article, confirm it is neutrally written, and properly referenced.
 * if good faith contributors accidentally included passages that they didn't realize would seem salacious to a paedophile, rewrite them, or simply remove them, explaining why on the talk page.
 * You should only have considered deletion if you made a reasonable good faith attempt to independently confirm that the topic of the article measured up to our inclusion criteria, and you then concluded the topic of the article did not measure up to our criteria.
 * I am sorry to say the record strongly suggests you either made an inadequate effort to measure Nelson's notability, or that you looked no farther than the paedophile's blog page. You placed a prod on this article on September 27, asserting, " Biography seems to exist only to draw attention to the subject having posed naked as a six year-old. Fails WP:GNG..."  The contributor who removed the prod wrote: "rv a prod that's clearly untrue. The article makes two claims to WP:N. They may be valid or not, but please don't insult other editors as being unable to count."  I think they were correct, there were two claims to notability, not one as you claimed.  Yet, the AFD you initiated five hours later uses the exact same wording as your prod.   Surely you can see how this strongly suggests that, not only did you fail to read the article closely enough to recognize that the article does contain TWO claims to notability, it also looks like you couldn't even make the effort to read the explanation for removing the prod, and give it some consideration, prior to initiating the AFD.
 * I too found something to do with the wikipedia on an alarming blog. Formerly there was a sockpuppet master who was able to talk the rest of us into entrusting him with administrator authority -- twice,  using two different sockpuppets.  I read that he hung out on some particular white-supremicist hate sites, and I googled those sites, searching for wikipedia.  I did not find the wikipedia-trashing comments I had read he had made.  I did find a white supremist denouncing the wikipedia, because it didn't even have an article on Andrea Amati, who he characterized as the inventor of the violin.   So, I was in situation somewhat similar to you, and your ppaedophile.  I did something positive however.  I started an article on Amati.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete A few things here, one What_Wikipedia_is_not, two a republished op-ed is NOT evidence of significant coverage and three she is only notable for ONE EVENT. Also if editors could please refrain from creating multiple headings as it makes it hard to follow any discussion. CommotioCerebri (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator  is wikihounding me.  Over 75 percent of their edits are either reversions of my edits, or are otherwise about my contributions.  This comment is not a policy compliant not-vote, but is an act of harrasment, and should be totally discounted. For the record, NELSON could hardly be a one event individual, when the extensive coverage she earned in 2013 nad NOTHING to do with the controversy of 2008.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan, you appear to have chosen to participate in this discussion immediately after our unpleasant interaction at Articles for deletion/Sana Dua. After I asked you on your talk page to back off, you started badgering me here. I am sorry to hear that you feel another editor is harassing you. Maybe you should stop harassing other editors. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Trim and merge and redirect  It was her mother's controversy, not hers, so merge the further information in this article into the mother's article and redirect to there, and trim off all the other not (yet) notable stuff.  Subject is a single event, and not yet notable in her own right.  TOOSOON for her own article.   Aoziwe (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , excuse me? In 2013 hse was the subject of multiple television and radio interviews.  She was profiled, multiple times.  This coverage had absolutely nothing to do with her mother'.  So, why are you saying coverage of her should be redirected to an article on her mother?  How closely did you look at the article?  Did you perform your own web search?  I am sure if you spent a minute with google you would find the coverage of Nelson in 2013, which is not focussed on the controversy in 2008, is very significant, would probably have been enough to establish notability, all by itself, even if she hadn't been at the center of a controversy in 2008.   The article needs work.  I only started working on it yesterday.  I added a link to a page where the Australian Broadcasting Corporation published about the segment of a public affairs show profiling Nelson.  The article on the program quoted some of the notable people who they sought out for opinions on Nelson.  The 2013 video link has expired, but the article about the show seemed to me to imply the entire show was devoted to Nelson.  So, when a television network devoted considerable airtime, maybe an entire episode, to Nelson, can you explain why that coverage does not establish notability?  If you do that web search you will see that the ABC coverage was not the only TV and radio coverage of her.   Yes, ideally, the article itself should have linked to the other TV and radio coverage of her from 2013 -- her second bout of notability that had nothing to do with her mother's photos.  But, please remember, our deletion policy tells us we don't delete articles that are weak, when the underlying topic is notable.  Our deletion policies tell us that weak articles on notable topics are supposed to be flagged for improvement, and improved.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The facts of the matter are these: "Encouraged by her parents, she sent an essay on the subject to The Age newspaper in Melbourne". The publication of that essay in The Age (and sister newspaper The Sydney Morning Herald) amounts to something closer to a letter to the editor than an op-ed. Yes, it garnered a bit of attention at the time because she was a 16 year old critiquing the behavior of her peers. That's it. It may become noteworthy if Olympia Nelson goes on to something notable in the future, but to prop it up with breathless claims that "the article about the show seemed to me to imply the entire show was devoted to Nelson" shows a complete lack of perspective about this article. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I am not "hassling you" now, when I say I think this comment shows you STILL haven't made the effort to comply with BEFORE, and conduct a thorough web search. You dismiss her op-ed as something that should have been publishished as a letter to the editor.  I simply can't believe you could have written this if you had seen how widely cited it was, how many adults made comments like: "Reading the incredibly eloquent op-ed of teenager Olympia Nelson last week, it struck me how much the sexual expression of teenagers has shifted in a relatively short time.".  In a previous AFD discussion you wrote something seriously off, in response to an explanation, from me, that you and I are not reliable sources, and that we rely on the professional judgment of professional journalists and editors, not the personal opinions and judgements of wikipedia contributory.   Your response then was that I didn't know you weren't a professional journalist, in real life.  Similarly, here you are asking the rest of us to ignore the judgement of The Ages editors, and discount the notability of the essay, based on YOUR JUDGEMENT' that it should have been a letter to the editor.  I wouldn't care if you claimed you were secretly a Pullitzer Prize winning journalist.  So long as you are participating here, where you could be anyone, your judgements count for nothing, same as the rest of us.  Every day a professional journalist is on the job, their judgement calls affect their careers.  They are potentially one bad decision away from never working in journalism again, or not getting that next desirable job.  But, even if I knew you were a professional journalist, that would not tempt me to invest your opinions with the respect we give reliable sources.   As you should know, the wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.  Wikipedians who would be RS, if published elsewhere, can't publish a new idea here.  They have to publish that new idea somewhere else, and trust that another wikipedia contributor will see fit to summarize it here, if it is going to appear here.   Second, even if I knew you were a professional journalist, you could hate some of the restrictions of your job, and want to do all kinds of things your day job as a professional journalist wouldn't let you do.  For instance, you wrote above that you first came across the wikipedia article when it was on the blog of a creepy paedophile.  Practically everyone hates genuine paedophiles.  There must be some professional journalists who hate having to cover stories related to paedophilia; hate covering them when the paedophile is at large, hate covering their arrests, trials, sentencing, imprisonment or release; and hate covering anything to do with their victims.  A professional journalist might come to the wikipedia precisely to get away from things like covering creepy paedophiles.   In fact, she originally did submit a shorter version as a letter to the editor, and the editors chose to encourage her to expand it into the first of several op-eds.  Does getting an op-ed published in a major paper convey notability?  I say the answer is yes.  Does it convey more notability if you are still in grade eleven?  I say yes.  Er, I missed this at first -- her dad works at The Age, which erodes some of the notability of her being published there.  But they still have an obligation to only consider publishing op-eds from the teen-age children of employees when their work meets their professional standards.   The main notability of her essay on selfies is from how widely cited it is.  Her other essays did not capture the attention of other RS, and they didn't write about her, so they convey much less notability.   There are all conclusions you would have arrived at yourself, if you had properly complied with BEFORE.
 * As to whether the entire 2013-09-23 episode of Australian Story was devoted to Nelson -- look here, I believe it establishes the entire episode was focused around Nelson. It sez: "Melbourne schoolgirl Olympia Nelson is only sixteen, but she's no stranger to controversy. She's grown up in an unusual but talented household as the daughter of an art critic and acclaimed photographer Poli Papapetrou. Olympia and her mother have had a long creative partnership. But in 2008 an unclothed photograph of Olympia aged six generated national controversy when it appeared on the cover of the magazine 'Art Monthly'. Even the Prime Minister bought in. Now Olympia has weighed in from an unexpected direction by publicly challenging the popularity of 'selfies' – often explicit self portraits posted on social media. Her robust analysis of the selfie trend and issues around girls, sexual expression and self image was published by The Age Newspaper, setting off a new debate... "
 * Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete this is a whole lot of puffed-up nothingburger. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 15:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator: is pushing to keep this so hard and has made many walls-of-text posts both here and on my talk page., I suspect he has a conflict of interest .  Note .  This is all trivial coverage of a minor, puffed up so it doesn't meet a surface reading of WP:BLP1E.  It should be deleted. power~enwiki ( π ,  ν ) 14:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you've mistaken AfD for ANI. If you have a complaint against another editor, because you think they have some sort of undeclared COI, then that's the place to voice it, not here. If you're here, then don't make snide, unanswerable digs at another editor - stick to discussing this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have amended my remarks, hopefully to your satisfaction. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 15:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Administrators know they are not supposed to just count noses, that they are supposed to evaluate the arguments offered, and they are authorized to completely ignore comments that are not based on a wikidocument or long established convention. Yes, as a courtesy to you, I left you a note on Talk:Power~enwiki, requesting you to step up your game.  I could have addressed the same concerns about your initial lack of an reference to wikipedia policy to the closing administrator.
 * You did come back, and expand your initial comment with one tidbit of policy-based justification -- BLP1E. Please regard my thanks for this gesture as proportional to the effort you put into fulfilling your obligations.  Sadly, BLP1E is clearly inapplicable.  BLP1E applies to individuals known only for a single event, while Nelson is known for multiple events.  Nelson is known for the very widely cited op-ed published in 2013; she is known for the images of her naked her mom published in an art magazine; she is known for going on record and defending her mother's decision in answer to criticisms from the Australian Prime Minister, which I would count as a third event.  When her op-ed was published, in 2013, The Age did not even mention the images published in 2008.  She didn't mention it either.  These were very, very clearly separate events.
 * With regard to conflict of interest, I don't even live in Australia, and had never heard of Nelson, before I encountered this AFD. Geo Swan (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Call to relist, although I am the only keep, so far.
 * Nominator does not seem to have made any edffort to comply with BEFORE, and seems to have acknowledged that he or she decided to try an delete the article because he found a creepy person was linking to it. Nominating something for deletion, without actually reading it, just so a creepy person, off-wiki, can't link to it, sounds like a clear lapse from NOTCENSORED.
 * 's BLP1E assertion strongly suggests they didn't read the article, as Nelson has two events, separatted by five years, that have nothing to do with one another.
 * edit history shows this wiki-ID was created solely to impede my work, so their delete should be discounted.
 * 's merge also seems to be written by someone who didn't read the whole article. Only one of the two major sources of Nelson's notability has anything to do with her mother, so a redirection to her mother's article just doesn't make sense.
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan, you have completely misunderstood and/or misrepresented the situation. One reference used in the article was the personal website of some creepy Australian fucker who is evidently obsessed with naked children. It was this use of that site as a reference that caused me to look at this article in the first place. I do not know who might be linking to this Wikipedia article off-site and I am completely unconcerned by it. That is not why I nominated the article for deletion. Please read more carefully. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan. I have reread the article, now a third time.  I had also done my own searches.  Over all I think it is TOOSOON for the subject to have their own article.  I suggest one more "event", or one more significant "follow up", would put her over the line.  The "op-ed" material is certainly notable in an article on that subject, but two events, both of which seem to have been covered for the either voyeuristic content or sensational content do not seem to add up to ongoing notability at this time.  I did not get back to your earlier comment because I do not see the point in getting into debates for which there might not be any common ground to build a consensus upon.  Yes the person does seem to have potential and I would hope it eventuates, but not an article just yet.  The redirect is to cover the first event, which is really related to the mother.  The second is a single event for the subject at hand, not yet having ongoing notability for that person.  Regards.  Aoziwe (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking additional efforts to review the references for this topic.
 * I think you are mistaken to focus on events. It is not events that make topics wikipedia notable, it is coverage in reliable sources.
 * For instance, a soldier might commit an extraordinarily brave act, or an extraordinarily perfidious act – which didn't receive any RS coverage, or received only brief mention, in his or her local paper. It wouldn't matter how extraordinary wikipedia contributors found his or her act, if we couldn't use RS to verify the event.
 * But, if a well respected columnist picked his or her story up, years later, and their coverage of it got other reporters to cover it, that individual would then meet the criteria for notability, without any new events.
 * Our nominator discounted the notability of Nelson's widely cited essay on risque selfies, saying it was something that should have been a letter to the editor – while not acknowledging how many other writers reported their reactions to her essay, and how many scholars grabbed at a chance to quote an actual teenager, an intelligent and articulate teenager, say interesting things about risque selfies. It is not my personal opinion that the essay was interesting and significant that makes Nelson notable.  Rather it is the documentable impact it had, as proven by all the RS who cited her, quoted her, or paraphrased her.
 * I'd also like to ask you about the 2013-09-23 episode of Australian Story – she got an entire episode of a long running documentary show, that broadcasts in prime time. Did a million of people watch it?  Or mere hundreds of thousands?  Other media profiled her.  She appeared on other television shows, and radio shows, for interviews.  Are you sure you don't recognize this establishing her notability?
 * Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2017 (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.