Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Collins

Lily Collins

Lily Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as non-notable. Notability is not conferred upon the relatives of noteworthy people, nor does merely being a graduate of Harvard. The only possible claim to notability is a Reuters article stating that she was tapped last year for hosting interstitial TV spots. Nightscream (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nightscream (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: Step 2 of the nomination process was not properly completed (article links were missing). It has been fixed. KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The subject is a graduate of Harvard-Westlake School, a private high school in California, not Harvard, the university in Massachusetts. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I had seen the name Lily Collins mentioned in several places: in newspapers/magazines American, French and British, so I became curious and wanted to know who she was. She is fairly well known in L.A. Therefore I figured I wasn't the only one who would look her up, and created the article. She is not just a "relative of noteworthy people" nor did she graduate from "Harvard" but from Harvard-Westlake, a school in L.A.; but she is a TV host, writer, and apparently socialite.

I believe that Wikipedia should go in the direction of more information, not less information, so I don't see any reason why an article about a minor celebrity should be deleted.

I don't know her or have any relation to her. Evangeline (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment My apologies for misunderstanding what Harvard-Westlake is, but Wikipedia does not include information, nor maintain articles, because it "goes in the direction of more information". It's an encyclopedia, and as such, it has certain policies and guidelines to ensure its credibility, and some of those pertain to the criteria by which it distinguishes between subjects that do and do not merit articles. To this end, BLP articles must include verifiable, reliable sources that establish notability. None of the sources establish her as a "writer" of any notability (the Reuters article mentions she "designed a page" at ElleGirlUK), and none of them mention her as a "socialite". The only two things for which she is mentioned in any of the sources in the article (none of which are formatted into inline citations to make it clear what information each source supports) that has attracted any sort of attention is being Phil Collins' daughter and being tapped to host interstitial spots on Nickelodeon. And if this recent edit is true (I reverted it because it was unsourced), then she's not even doing that any more. If you have sources that establish the things for which you indicate she is noteworthy, then please include them as inline citations in the article. Nightscream (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you're a man. Any woman would think that articles in Vogue and the U.K. Daily Mail, being picked to represent Chanel and wear their clothes for free, appearing in movies and television, and being regularly featured in style blogs and magazines as a very stylish "actress" and "model" ... was enough to at least rate a mention in wikipedia. The bottom line is, the wikipedia article has already been quoted several times in the blogosphere, and there are lots of photos of her and 45,000+ mentions of "lily collins" + "2009". Why would you want to delete her?

By the way, the article does not say she is a writer, and *does include sources*. I don't know how to do inline citations. Evangeline (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My gender is not an issue here, nor is the gender of anyone who advocates for or against this article, so I'd suggest you refrain from irrelevant personal or ad hominem arguments.

Articles in Vogue and the Daily Mail, in and of themselves, do not merit a Wikipedia article, unless those sources establish the reason for which the person is notable. Those articles mention mostly that she's Phil Collins' daughter, was picked by Chanel to wear one of their dresses at an event, and did some Nickelodeon hosting work, none of which establishes notability for a WP article.

The article does not indicate that she is "regularly featured in style blogs and magazines". No source is provided in the article for her acting. Even the Blind Side article doesn't mention her, nor contain a source indicating that she has any part in the film, let alone an important one. The only link in the article to this effect is imdb, which Wikipedia does not consider a reliable source.

That this article has been quoted in the blogosphere is not the "bottom line". Blogs, in and of themselves, are not reliable sources, because their content is user-generated, and have no editorial controls. The prevalence of photos of someone is similarly not pertinent with respect to notability. Anyone can take thousands of photos of themselves or some other person or thing and post them on the Net. That does not make the subject of those photos notable. As for being quoted, an article cannot be justified on the basis that it has been quoted or cited elsewhere, since that is circular. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for establishing notability, and if you wish this article to remain, then it must meet those standards, and not the arbitrary ones made up by those who do not wish to learn and follow those guidelines. That is the only "bottom line" upon which the article's inclusion or exclusion will be decided, and my only interest in this discussion, as I do not have any personal stake in the deletion or inclusion of her article. If sources can be provided that establish her notability in line with policy, then the article should remain. If not, it should be deleted.

I didn't say that the article said she was a writer, nor that the article does not include sources. To the first point, my statement was made in response to your assertion that she was a writer in your 22:46, 18 November 2009 post above. ("...but she is a TV host, writer, and apparently socialite.") To the second point, I have only stated that none of the sources in the article establish notability.

As for inline citations, you can learn how to do it at WP:Citing sources. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Although I can appreciate being labeled stylish by Vogue or some other fashion publication or blog, that doesn't amount to much in this context. Sames goes with being picked by Chanel to wear a dress to an event. I'm sure it's terribly exciting but that's not a notable. As it stands right now, Collins fails WP:ENTERTAINER (one television show appearance, one film role currently completed). I think she'd definitely warrant an article in a year or two if she keeps acting though. Out of curiosity, what exactly is quoted from this article in the blogsphere? The entire article consists of a whopping five sentences. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a Wikipedia expert, but Lily Collin is in the news as an up-and-coming actress with lots of mentions mostly in women's magazines (which, excuse me, does make your gender relevant as you are far less likely to have seen her), in newspapers, and on websites (I added only a few major ones, but there are many mentions). She is now in a major movie and has been chosen by a Chanel as one of their style figures (they give free clothes only to people they think will gain them free publicity, as at the Oscars, so it's quite a compliment). I am not familiar with Wikipedia's criteria for notability but I can't imagine why you would want to delete someone who has 45,000 mentions in the blogosphere this year alone and whom people will be looking up this year trying to find information about. Your deletion discussion is discouraging for someone who is not related in any way to Lily Collins, saw her more and more often in the media in the past year, and thought an article on her would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangeline (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

@Nightscream, thanks for the reference and I have put in inline refs. In the process I saw more media articles about Lily and became even more convinced that she merits an article. Evangeline (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether I've seen her is irrelevant, because that is not the basis upon which an article subject is determined to be noteworthy. The basis upon which an subject is determined to be notable is whether sources can be provided to establish it, as I've explained to you quite clearly in this discussion, and not personal knowledge of the subject, which is subjective, and therefore, neither relevant, nor an appropriate line of reasoning in an AfD discussion. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you've never seen a giant squid, Imhotep, or the Great Attractor, nor read a magazine article on them. Does that mean that those things are not notable enough to qualify for articles? Obviously, no, because Wikipedia does not consider personal knowledge to be a valid basis for edits, or for notability. And because my personal knowledge of Collins is irrelevant, as is whether I've seen articles on her, so, therefore is my gender. Stop employing personal or ad hominem arguments. They're irrelevant, and not considered to be within the best spirit of WP:Civility or WP:No personal attacks. Focus instead on the issue of whether sources can be provided to establish notability.

As a newcomer to Wikipedia, Evangeline, I say, Welcome! If you do not know Wikipedia's criteria for notability, I would humbly suggest that you learn them, as they're fairly simple and straightforward (even if we have disagreements over notability like this one). The notability criteria for entertainers is right here. And if you ever have any further questions about editing, Evangeline, do not hesitate to ask me. As for the inline refs, you're very welcome. :-)

You don't understand why I would want to delete an article on a subject who has 45,000 mentions in the blogosphere? Well, maybe the reason you don't understand this is because when I flat-out explained it to you in my last post, you decided to ignore it? Perhaps it's because you don't want to understand it? In any event, when you've decided that you do wish to understand it, it's right there, just three posts above this one. If you want to discuss it, and offer counterarguments explaining why the rationale I provide is wrong, feel free to do so.

As for your assertion that people will be looking up this year trying to find information about her, this addressed by two other sections on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Specifically, the "will be" portion of that statement is addressed by this section, and the "looking up information her" is addressed by this one. I'm sorry that you are discouraged by this. I understand if you're a fan of hers. But I think you would agree that having standards for inclusion in general makes a better encyclopedia, and that without them, the site would be unmanageable. Nightscream (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• I honestly think she has enough citation in published media to be considered of sufficient merit to have a wikipedia page. What Nightscream or any of us think of her is, indeed, irrelevant, but I think the point evanegline trying to bring is that she is sufficiently popular in a subculture of "woman", shown through the reference and citation, that she is worthy of merit to be incuded in wikipedia as a minor artist09:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)09:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)09:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArielGenesis (talk • contribs)

• Don't Delete Not sure if I'm properly tagging this, but there's no way this should be deleted, she's been the host of Nickelodeon's TEENick block for almost the past 3 years and she's starring in the movie the Blind Side that just came out.70.105.218.134 (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, Sufficient coverage in reliable source news media in order to warrant article, thus meeting notability per WP:BIO#Basic_criteria. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment most of those merely reference her as being the daughter of someone famous, being in some small movie roles or doing that hosting job for Nickelodeon. One isn't even of her, but a 79-year-old Lily Collins. Nightscream (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 00:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep really terrible choices of roles aside, she definitely gets enough press coverage for our purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I have tagged article for cleanup, as it is currently a mess. HOWEVER, that is a surmountable issue and not cause for deletion. It does not matter that she is the daughter of Phil Colins, as Ms Collins receives her own coverage in RS that meet WP:GNG and she's is even a 2008 winner of a Young Hollywood Award. Time to fix through regular editing... not to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Nightscream needs to chill; it really is not necessary (and is actually counterproductive) to attempt to refute every comment here. You have made your case, let others evaluate the article.   pablo_hablo. 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I just did a mass cleanup after looking for more/better refs. She's been the primary subject of multiple articles by the Daily Mail. She herself has written for Elle Girl, Teen Vogue, Seventeen (magazine), and the Los Angeles Times Magazine. She's been on Nickelodeon. She's got upcoming movies. She's received serious press as a model. Yes, she's notable, by a number of different criteria. (Note: Yes, I'm female. No, I don't give a rat's ass about what she wears or who designed it.) Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep She is notable on her own, has gotten coverage for reasons other than who her father is, and has one a notable award. Dream Focus 02:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nightscream, I think it's funny that you accuse me of using "ad hominem" arguments by merely saying that you must be a man, which is in no way negative; and then yourself say things like this to me: "maybe the reason you don't understand this is because when I flat-out explained it to you in my last post, you decided to ignore it? Perhaps it's because you don't want to understand it? In any event, when you've decided that you do wish to understand it...."

I agree with you-- let's keep this discussion civil. I put up the article because I thought it would add to Wikipedia, not because I have any personal knowledge of its subject. Let the article stand or die on its merits, there's no need to scold contributors who are trying to help Wikipedia. And incidentally, I did read everything you linked to. I just don't happen to agree with you. No more from me on this.Evangeline (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you know what an ad hominem argument is, then you know that reacting to my statements by asserting that they are derived from gender is indeed an ad hominem argument. If you can refute this, and explain how this is not an ad hominem argument, then by all means, feel free to do so. As it stands, merely saying, "it's not negative" does not accomplish this, since that's not what an ad hominem argument is.

By contrast, the statement by me that quoted was a direct reaction to your behavior here, and not any perceptions of superficial irrelevant things like gender, race, religion, etc. Specifically, you asserted that Collins is known in the blogsphere in your November 19 post. In my post the next day, I explained to you why presence in the blogosphere does not establish notability, and provided a link to the policy page where this is detailed. In your next post the day after that on November 21, however, instead of responding to directly to that explanation, refuting it, disproving it, showing how my interpretation of it is wrong, etc., you instead just repeated the original point, saying you didn't understand why someone would want to delete an article on a person with ubiquity in the blogosphere, not responding in any way to what I explained about the related policies. So what was I to make of this? Well, it seemed to me that you either didn't care what I had to say in my post, or just don't care to learn and understand Wikipedia's policies one way or the other, or just compartmentalized the truth of what I said because you couldn't refute it. I don't know which of these it was, or if it was something else entirely, but I've encountered this quite a bit when trying to explain the site's guidelines to newcomers, who seem disinterested in learning them, even when others here try to help them do so. Wouldn't you agree that it at least appeared that you completely ignored what I had said? This isn't "negative". It's an observation of your participation in this discussion. So unlike your attempts to guess aspects of my personhood (which you never refuted as somehow not being ad hominem comments), all I did was respond to your arguments regarding Collins, and never made any comments about you personally. Thus, you see a contradiction where there is none, and call for civility when the only one who hasn't exhibited full civility has been you. If you want to keep this civil, then please dispense with the logical fallacies, the distortions, and the attempt to accuse me of hypocrisy by employing false analogies, okay? Peace, and Happy Thanksgiving. :-) Nightscream (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I see in depth coverage in reliable sources, I see an award, and I think notability has clearly been established. AniMate 20:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Click23 (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per award won, journalistic credits, film role, extended period as tv hostess. As an aside, I don't think it was out of line for Evangeline to express her impression that the definitions of notability were being applied by a man. Since 95% of the editors on Wikipedia are male, the perception that these guidelines are not constructed to recognize characteristics of a subject that are "notable" according to female culture and values is probably correct. Expressing frustration about that is a reasonable thing to do. The best place to do it, however, is on the discussion page for those notability guidelines, with clear suggestions about how they should change to accomodate female value systems. Netmouse (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)