Talk:Hollie Steel

Britain's Got Talent Final Results

Hollie Steel finished 6th in the public voting, beating 4 of the other contestants. As over 4,000,000 votes were phoned in, and Hollie got almost 4%, she received around 150,000 to 160,000 votes. The first 4 in the list received 77.8% of the total vote - see below. Also note that it has been pointed out that the telephone number shown for Susan Boyle during some of the scrolls of telephone numbers while voting was ongoing was actually that for Diversity; if only 2.4% of the total number of voters ended up voting for Diversity but meant to vote for Susan Boyle, the results for first and second would have been reversed. We will never know... but Hollie definitely beat 4 of the other finalists in the voting.

Act  % of vote in SF

Diversity 24.9% Dance Troupe 11 mbrs 13-25 yrs old Susan Boyle 20.2% Singer 48 yrs old Julian Smith 16.4% Sax Player 40 yrs old Stavros Flatley 16.3% Comedy Dance Team 41? and 12 yrs old Aidan Davis 6.5% Dancer 11 yrs old Hollie Steel 3.9% Singer 10 yrs old Shaheen Jafargholi 3.8% Singer 12 yrs old Flawless 3.6% Dance Troupe 10 mbrs 21-26 yrs old Shaun Smith 3.4% Singer 17 yrs old 2 Grand 1.0% Singing pair 12 and 76 yrs old —Preceding unsigned comment added by RsHRsH (talk • contribs) 02:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fan page

Hi all. I added a link to the "External links" to Hollie's main fan page ([1]). Why did you remove it? It is a very good resource, you will find info there which is currently missing in the article, like on the current petition. They are in close contact to Jason Steel. And, if that was your concern, I am not connected to that site in any way. -Malwin (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fansites are removed as per WP:FANSITE --Uksam88 (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that. There are tons of rules to learn for any newbie ;-) -Malwin (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Dates of developments or reports should be included. We often forget that while the information is fresh in our minds - say when Armstrong walked on the moon - we forget that 5 years from now a student will be reading it for the first time and will need dates and times. That is why I put the date back on Steel and Harris. Just a thought. --Dane Sorensen (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability

This article looks to be a prime candidate for deletion under Notable for one event. Thousands of people enter talent competitions each year. Should they all have articles? Jezhotwells (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So much for WP:BEFORE. Radiopathy •talk• 19:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's on the edge. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, having read the discussions I would suggest that a merge of the notable information into the series article would be appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: a merge to the main article on the competition seems like the best option. To be honest, I can't see how the last AfD was closed as "no consensus"—if I were the closing admin I certainly would have closed it as delete, given that many of the keep votes were SPAs or other random editors who clearly did not understand Wikipedia guidelines, typed in all caps, etc.—but oh well. Merging, at the least, seems appropriate. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page comments

I query why User:Radiopathy deleted comments on the notability of the subject and whether a merger might be appropriate. I must ask that these are re-instated immediately. Such attempts to censor talk pages and control the discussion are contrary to core Wikipedia principles. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Such comments as, "Ha, ha. Comparing a talent show contestant to the moon landing - very good. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)" in response to another user's comments are not in keeping with policy regarding article talk pages, particularly BLPs.

You may want to attempt another Afd, despite the closing admin's comments on the last one; you won't get "censored" there, as that's the appropriate venue.

Likewise, if you favour merging, a template at the top of the article will get a discussion started here on the talk page.

But don't come here to disrupt and then cry about "censorship". Radiopathy •talk• 20:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I repeat - the notability of this subject is questionable as commented on here by User:Uksam88 [2] and User:Gwen Gale [3] and myself [4] and [5]. User talk:Radiopathy has removed these comments which is in direct violation of talk page etiquette. My light hearted comment re the moon landing was just that - a light hearted comment. I am asking User talk:Radiopathy again to revert their misguided attempt at censorship. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to note he also removed one of his own...Uksam88 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, so he did [6] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You both need to be careful because you are approaching edit warring. However i have reverted the last one because censoring Jezhotwells comment is very close to being vandalism, it was hardly constructive and fairly childish. Uksam88 (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming

The article was recently updated to change references such as Hollie to Steel. This is a common usage on Wikipedia but seems unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

• The article covers several members of the Steel family and so the family name alone may be ambiguous.
• The usage seems offensively abrupt, falling awkwardly between formal usage — Miss Steel — and informal — Hollie
• The repeated usage of Steel and/or personal pronouns such as she tends to be monotonous and so makes our article seem crude and poorly written.

I suggest that we improve the article by using varying phrases such as the child singer and tearful contestant. I shall perhaps make some attempt at this myself but as we already have differing versions some discussion seems best before more work is done. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)#

And I suggest that you do not remove comments from this talk page. If it gets too big then archive it. These amateur attempts at censorship will get you into hot water if they continue. It is perfectly valid to query the notability of the subject here. Describing a topic as stale in anything less than seven days is absurd. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. First of all, the article only briefly mentions other members of the Steel family, they're not talked about throughout the articles; there is no ambiguity anywhere "Steel" is used, because she is understood as the primary focus of the article. And even if there were ambiguity in a sentence or two, that would not justify using "Hollie" throughout the entire article. Secondly, as for "monotonous", using "Hollie" over and over again is equally monotonous, and less professional.

As for your suggestion of replacing her name with stuff like "the tearful contestant"...absolutely not. This kind of flowery, peacocky wording is non-neutral, unprofessional, and makes for a poor article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Colonel's suggestion of "the tearful contestant" was, I'm assuming, an attempt at humour aimed at the trolls who kept disrupting this page. I wouldn't worry about it getting into the article. Radiopathy •talk• 19:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to think of a better insult than troll or perhaps read Wikipedia:Civility Uksam88 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Switching back and forth from Hollie to Steel is a waste of time. It should be Steel. That is the accepted form. Nice to see some other scholar put back the fact that Steel has a manager. Furthermore, I enjoyed the comment about too much debate over new items concerning this person. We should not have to wait until Hollie Steel is dead before we can put something that has appeared recently in the media in her Wiki article. --Dane Sorensen (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

I don't see why this page is still here. Has anybody heard anything from her since BGT? No. It's clear she's not notable so can someone please AFD this and delete it once and for all? THE NAME'S BOB (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Snow Keep - just read the article. Radiopathy •talk• 03:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Updates

Ok, I give up. Included information from a perfectly credible news article that appeared yesterday and cited it like the others, yet it was deleted. Not sure what's expected if that wasn't acceptable.

Look at the Beyond Britain's Got Talent section: that's where the content went. It was moved out of the lead because it was just too long; the lead is meant to be a brief summation of what the reader can expect from the article. The content and ref were done very well, and are still part of the article. Radiopathy •talk• 03:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)