Talk:Olivia Jade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Encyclopedic tone tag[edit]

I believe the article is of encyclopedic tone. Is there support for removing the tag? Chetsford (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes, remove undue tag. XavierItzm (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As nom, I concur, however, will wait for someone else to do the removal to first establish a broader consensus as per WP:MTR. Chetsford (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Undue tag.Dogru144 (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Chetsford and Dogru144. The page, however, has other important issues that you may wish to address. XavierItzm (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

USC withdrawal[edit]

@ThatMontrealIP: I saw your note about the Page Six and TMZ sources not being reliable for the withdrawal note. I did a little digging and found another mention at E!. They support the assertion with "multiple outlets report", which I agree isn't the best and could just be referring to the Post and TMZ reports, but WP:RSP shows E! is "regarded as a usable source for celebrity news", though with "no consensus": There is no consensus on the reliability of the E! television network, including its website E! Online. It is generally regarded as a usable source for celebrity news. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.

After having read all three articles, I think there should be some mention of the potential withdrawal on the page. It makes the most sense given the coverage so far, but I understand it isn't exactly a no-brainer to include it. What other concerns do you (or others) have? - PaulT+/C 05:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I added a ref to CNBC and Vox. Chetsford (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Psantora, has she dropped out or rather, is she simply planning to drop out? Has she dropped out of the school itself or just her program? Has she actually taken action to press the button to drop out, or is that the plan according to her cleaning lady or gardener, who overheard it and gave it to TMZ? There are conflicting reports in the media on this (e.g. she's in, she's out). We will likely know the hard facts in a week or so; until then it's largely gossip reporting. Thanks to Chetsford for making the page reflect thisThatMontrealIP (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I see the nuance. Chetsford's addition was exactly the kind of mention I was getting at and I agree that in time it will all get sorted. - PaulT+/C 07:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Paul and ThatMontrealIP. There's nuance and additional review of the text as it now stands may be necessary. XavierItzm (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Postscript, eight days later. USC confirms in a statement that the two sisters are still enrolled. So the TMZ source was plainly incorrect. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Subscriber/follower listing[edit]

This is in reference to the edits ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]) by (talk · contribs · WHOIS) about whether or not to include YouTube play buttons or subscriber information in the article. Regardless of what is decided, WP:THREATENing cyberbullying is not appropriate: "I’m trying to save this from showing up on tommorws mark dice video pointing out how “Wikipedia allowed Olivia jade’s count and play buttons... but not mine and we were in the exact same boat” Before you restore the edit, consider that, consider how Wikipedia will look"[7]

It seems as if the IP is upset about a similar removal from Mark Dice. I have no idea who that is or what that dispute was about but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and it has nothing to do with the discussion here. I'd prefer not escalating this so I look forward to a reasoned discussion. Now, what is the convention for including the kind of information the IP objects to? I honestly don't have much of an opinion either way, I'm just trying to improve the article. - PaulT+/C 19:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The YouTube count for Gold level was sourced to a WP:RS. It should be added back immediately, as well as anything else correctly sourced and currently removed by the IP. XavierItzm (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done - PaulT+/C 04:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Hello Psantora, I wanted a quick follow up on the revert about external links to social media. To my understanding as far as links to avoid, shouldn't her social media accounts such as Twitter or Instagram not be included? Information on her social media is already stated in the article (for example with "Giannulli's social media platforms were inundated with critical comments and she ultimately disabled the comment features on her Instagram account."). If there was an official website to point readers to, it would seem to be her YouTube channel as it has the most relevancy to her notability. Adog (TalkCont) 04:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. You are referring to point 10, right? Included inline for reference:
Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists.
My understanding is that her YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter accounts directly relate to her notability and therefore are acceptable. I have no preference between the Instagram or YouTube account in the infobox, so if you want to go and change that I think it would make sense.
Guidelines are guidelines (and not policy) for a reason. Every once in a while there is an exception. Now, if you want to start a discussion here to establish a consensus for this page that the links should be removed, I'm happy to engage in that discussion and if we reach consensus to remove the links, great.
My argument is that they relate directly to her notability and it is fairly reasonable to include her most-used services. I'm not advocating for linking her FaceBook or Snapchat accounts and I'm sure she has others as well, just the three biggest platforms she is on - YouTube (which you agree makes sense), Instagram, and Twitter.
Having said that, I'm just one opinion. If others feel differently then so be it. Not a huge deal either way. - PaulT+/C 04:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
All fine and dandy if others want to hop in for a discussion, and I was also pointing to #1 as well; Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links for future improvement of the page can be placed on the article's talk page. See {{refideas}}. I would attend to agree with the latter of all social media, but it seems redundant to have social media appear twice in the article when it's cited by RS and in discussion within the article. Just some clarification, nothing too heated. :) Adog (TalkCont) 04:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Wait, are you saying there are already links to the Twitter and Instagram accounts in the article (other than the infobox)? Where? Or do you just mean mentions of them? If it is the latter then I don't think 1 applies. Or are you saying that the Twitter and Instagram pages are potential references/sources and therefore should not be listed separately per 1? I don't agree with that either. I'm pretty sure 1 is meant for specific articles that contain important information that should be directly written about in prose, but are just stuck toward the end of the article in a "further reading" section or something like that and not mentioned anywhere else. In those cases those links should be posted to the talk page. I don't think it applies to this situation. Or I think I may be misunderstanding your point. Sorry. (And yes, this is pretty trivial stuff, not a big dispute by any means.) - PaulT+/C 05:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm referring to the mentions of social media within the article (civil yes quite civil gentlemen we are for a trivial topic (lol)), and I made a quite lame and tired argument. What I really wanted to expand upon was that it seems awkward to have her links to social media thereafter in the external links section when points that are made and discussed by reliable sources about her social media (mentioning her Instagram, et al.) already appear in the body of the article beforehand.
Because of this, it then becomes quite repetitive (like in principle of how links should only appear once after the lead MOS:DUPLINK; content shouldn't become repetitive if it's already stated once before in the lead and body) and it seems irrelevant to have them, in verbatim. Having reliable sources commentary on what is happening with her social media accounts is a better tool to communicate to readers what is and has transpired rather than leading them to her media accounts that (which at this time) are inactive and don't provide much commentary as to what is transpiring or what has changed in the past week.
However, YouTube (imo) would be the exception because it is the official website (technically) to the person-in-question; and regardless of its mention in the body, it is the only source to which the subject is closely connected. Though, whatever works though and seems proper (sorry if this seems like a waste of time, it's something I've come across in various articles and a discussion may help in resolving such). Adog (TalkCont) 18:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I think I see what you are saying ... I think you may be conflating a link with a mention. References should absolutely be from reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Every once in a while it will be necessary to have a primary source as a reference, but usually it is better not to do that. Having said that, just because there are mentions (or even links) to various sites in an article that does not mean those sites do not belong in the external links section also. As an example, imagine someone had a personal website that was used to source some information in an article. It would still be appropriate to list that site in the external links section. It would potentially also be appropriate to list their twitter account if they had an especially notable presence there. Anyway, I don't think there is a disagreement any longer. Thanks for keeping an open mind. - PaulT+/C 01:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Tap That Awesome App[edit]

Please remove this section. This text wouldn't be here but for a relatively unknown "influencer" whose claims about the game show haven't been proven, and who didn't make her unproven claims until she could leverage the USC scandal for publicity. Moreover, there's no record that the article's subject personally had anything to do with decision to re-shoot the end of the episode.

No matter how many reliable sources print an unproven statement, it's still just rumor. And this tabloid fodder is not necessary to understand the subject of the article. Wikipedia biographies are held to a high standard, aren't they? LetsGoSurfing (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep section - In biographies, not everything is about that the subject did. Events that happened to the subject are quite valid topics. So, for example, in many other bios:
(*) there's no record that the article's subject personally had anything to do with the lottery operator awarding the big prize to the subject
(*) there's no record that the article's subject personally had anything to do with getting cancer
(*) there's no record that the article's subject personally had anything to do with a random robber shooting up the subject
(*) there's no record that the article's subject personally had anything to do with National Socialist Germany troops invading his home
So you see, things that happen to the subject are valid topics, as long as there are WP:RS to support the statement. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete section - In the context of her life this one event is not notable nor will it be expanded upon due to a lack of in-depth coverage. I don't think it passes the HARM test. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete section or reduce to a single sentence. This article is getting to be a bit of a hit job. It is doing that indavertently by following policy to a 'T'. Yes, the sources are there in good pubs to cover the fact that the gameshow was rigged. However when we follow just the sources without balance, the general tenor of the article increasingly leans towards gossip reporting. The problem here is that by rigidly following the gossip-oriented sources, we have an article that is increasingly slanted towards defaming the character of the individual. Since very little balanced reporting exists, I think this should be left out until we can use sources that bring a more encyclopedic tone to the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for now as it's properly sourced but it should not have a dedicated section as this essentially becomes aWP:CRITICISM section. Wolfson5 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The "proper source" you're giving such credence to is the Daily Mail, and only the Daily Mail. The four(!) other illusory sources listed are all just regurgitating the Daily Mail hit piece, which itself is just regurgitating some random woman's claim. Apparently Wikipedia had a debate and decided the Daily Mail is a generally unreliable source: This would all be a head-shakingly terrible joke, but for the fact there's a real 19 year old woman being dragged through the mud hard right now, and has a toxic Wikipedia article on top of all the other mud. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Strong delete I was initially in favour of keeping it, but when I checked the sources, they're all churnalism of a Daily Mail story. Allegations like this need high quality, independent sources, not four different indirect cites of a deprecated source. Cheers, gnu57 02:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Note the section header has been removed and the content blended into the Early Life section. The moved content is still junk, and should still be deleted. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


The lead reads a little oddly. I would like to suggest we either include all companies she worked for or no companies she worked for. As it stands I'm not certain only choosing one random one to mention is an accurate summary of the body as per WP:LEAD. (For full disclosure, I was told about this article by an acquaintence who has an affiliation with the company currently mentioned but I do not have a personal COI, nor was I asked to actually do anything.) Wolfson5 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not all companies are listed, those listings should be accurate. Olivia Jade was never a spokesperson for Amazon - she did a sponsored ad for them. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I improved the lead to give an overall summary of the article. For Amazon... they have a number of people who act as "spokesperson" so this isn't really a highlight. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Born where?[edit]

Was she born in LA? There’s no mention of her place of birth l — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:8800:3270:E15C:1B58:E1E0:4457 (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is she listed as a "USC Alumni"?[edit]

This page is in University of Southern California alumni. Whether or not she is indeed withdrawing, she is not an alumna. -- Daviddwd (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Read Alumnus a little more carefully. It doesn't exclusively mean "graduate". - PaulT+/C 03:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
does one not have to either drop out or graduate to become an alumna? USC confirms in a statement that the two sisters are still enrolled. The connotation of alumus is clearly former (graduated or otherwise) and not meant for current students.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Alumni can mean a current student, though I do see the potential for confusion in this situation. However, you could argue the opposite as well - by putting the article in "people" it could also imply that she isn't currently a student.
Are there any examples of current students of a school being listed in the "people" category when there is a suitable "alumni" category? My understanding is that the University of Southern California people category is for faculty, staff, administrators, and others (though in fairness there are also categories for University of Southern California faculty, University of Southern California staff, and even USC Trojans coaches). Are there specific guidelines about prefering one over or the other?
@Trillfendi, Chetsford, and Genericusername57: as the editors that added/removed both categories in the first place, what do you think? To be clear, I do think that "alumni" is appropriate, but if it turns out there is existing consensus to never list current students in the "alumni" category then I'm fine with making that change. - PaulT+/C 16:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Technically, she is still enrolled. Whether she ever actually goes to class or not is another story. I mean the girl didn't even know clout was a real word. As far as I'm concerned she's an alumna at this point, regardless of how anyone feels about this situation. Trillfendi (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't intend to start a debate about her enrollment; I'm pretty sure we all agree she is still a current student at the school, at least according to the latest sources on the topic. I contend that current students can (and should) be put into the alumni category and not the person category, barring the existence of a more specific person-category that fits better. - PaulT+/C 18:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I originally added this category based on early (what we now know to be, incorrect) news reports that she had terminated her enrollment. At this point I don't have a problem with removing it pending her ultimate dismissal (should that occur) at which point it could be re-added. Chetsford (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
When you say removal, do you mean replacing the alumni category with the people category or removing any USC category altogether? - PaulT+/C 18:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Here are a few reliable definitions of alumnus:
Oxford English Dictionary: "A former pupil or student, especially a male one, of a particular school, college, or university,
Cambridge dictionary: "men and women who have completed their studies, esp. at a college or university",
Collins dictionary: "The alumni of a school, college, or university are the people who used to be students there",
Macmillan dictionary:"someone who was a student at a particular school, college, or university"
And so on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anything there that precludes the use of alumn* to also refer to current students, which is the original meaning of the term in Latin. All students, even if they are currently students, also were students. From Collins: "a person, esp. a boy or man, who has attended or is a graduate of a particular school, college, etc." I think a better approach to resolving this is to point to existing consensus somewhere on this point. I'm sure it has been discussed in the past. Maybe WP:University has some precedence we could use for guidance? - PaulT+/C 18:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC) (Note, I placed a comment at the WikiProject asking for some guidance. Hopefully this helps.) - PaulT+/C 18:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

In my experience, the contemporary usage of "alumni" at U.S. colleges and universities is much broader than how some other people use the term. In general, many colleges and universities seem to apply the word to anyone who matriculated. I think that most of us don't usually apply the word to people who are currently enrolled (they're just "students") but that's probably because "student" is more specific and a group of people on whom most of focus much more often than "anyone who is or was ever a student."

Unless there is a very strong need to create and maintain categories or lists of current students, I strongly recommend sticking with alumni lists and categories. Not only is the alumni label applicable for current students but alumni lists and categories are a lot easier to maintain than student lists and categories. Once someone matriculates at an institution, they're an alumnus so we can add them to the list or category and be done with it. If we have lists or categories of students, we have to maintain them to not only add people but also remove people once they graduate, drop out, transfer, are expelled, etc.

(For anyone who is frustrated that this term seems to have been expanded beyond the expected meaning of "graduate," I share your frustration and blame the people who work in fundraising; I haven't done any research but I strongly suspect that they are behind any changes in the meaning of this word because those changes broaden the group of people from whom they can solicit money.) ElKevbo (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

"blame the people who work in fundraising; I haven't done any research but I strongly suspect that they are behind any changes in the meaning of this word" ... ElKevbo - that's actually a fascinating hypothesis and probably worth a journal article! Chetsford (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Psantora: It's totally illogical to use "alumnus" for current students. My institution (a very highly-respected one, one of the ones involved in the scandal, but which I will not disclose publicly) clearly reserves the term for former students. Also, per BLP, literally no sources describe her as an alumnus. That alone should be justification for not categorizing her as such unless there is a really compelling reason to, which there is not (per ElKevbo, categorizing her as an alumnus is really OR'y right now).--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Jasper Deng: Regardless of your opinion of the logic or your "institution"'s policies (neither have any relevance here), there is logic in favor of the alumni category. Calling it "totally illogical" isn't accurate or fair. There clearly is room for discussion...
    ElKevbo summarized it very clearly: I strongly recommend sticking with alumni lists and categories. Not only is the alumni label applicable for current students but alumni lists and categories are a lot easier to maintain than student lists and categories. I think you may have misunderstood what they wrote.
    There are RS stating that she is a current student, that is not under dispute. Given that and the above "alumni" makes the most sense to me. - PaulT+/C 01:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    You really have to twist the dictionary definitions you gave in order to have the interpretation that current students are alumni; current usage of "alumnus" is very clearly for former students only. I have not misinterpreted what ElKevbo said: the school's alumni list does not list her as such. I strongly stand by "totally illogical" and it is very fair. What is unclear about "former"? Also, that aside, I am going to claim a BLP exception for removing the categorization entirely. There are no reliable sources that explicitly refer to her as an alumnus (your interpretation that calling her a current student counts is WP:SYNTH, since you clearly do not have consensus that WP:CALC would apply) and in the common usage of the term, the subject of the article may not like the implication that she has formally left the school when she hasn't.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Psantora, ElKevbo, and Chetsford: See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Olivia Jade.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Jasper Deng: I welcome the additional attention to this issue. - PaulT+/C 02:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent Events[edit]

Question superseded by RfC, below. Chetsford (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In consideration of the fact she is 19 years old and has only been in the public eye since age 16, I don't believe the article is slanted towards recent events merely on the basis of 50% of it chronicling events taking place in the last 12 months. Does anyone object to the tag being removed? Chetsford (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No objection. - PaulT+/C 05:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
No objection here either. Maybe we can find a little more information about her early life and such. Tinton5 (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I firmly oppose doing so given that it was a major concern by a good number of !voters (including keep) in the recent AfD. I think it’s clear that there’s undue weight on the scandal; I should think there should be more information on her influencer career.—Jasper Deng (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
In consideration of the objection, I'm reformatting this suggestion as a RfC (below). Chetsford (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Recentism tag - remove or maintain?[edit]

Should the Recentism tag currently on this page be maintained or removed? Chetsford (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Remove Recentism does not preclude a significant emphasis on recent events as a matter of course, only if the emphasis on recent events causes the article to focus on that which is merely transient, or, if it is out of proportion to the "timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus". This is a new article on a 19 year old who has had public attention for only the last 30 months. The fact that about 50-percent of the article focuses on her activities over the last 12 of those 30 months is not indicative of recentism. Chetsford (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have removed it as disruptive and WP:POINTY. There is no need for an RFC. Abductive (reasoning) 21:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Abductive: Way to AGF. As noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Jade, I was far from the only one expressing concerns about recentism in the article. To be fair, the article as-is is better with the content added by Chetford (talk · contribs), but it's a stretch to call it disruptive or POINTy when it's still (IMO) a valid concern.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
    • There's enough actually-expressed concern about recentism that we should probably seek a formal consensus instead of bolding it away. Chetsford (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
      • You don't need the tag to discuss things on the talk page. That tag was being misused. Abductive (reasoning) 05:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
        • @Abductive: Uh, no. It is very appropriate to use it for this article when there's a (IMO) pretty clear problem with having undue weight on the scandal. There was nothing inappropriate about the tag. And it certainly was not disruptive, let alone POINTy, to add it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Okay, I also oppose the tag appearing on the article. It looks like consensus is against the tag. Abductive (reasoning) 07:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
            • "It looks like consensus is against the tag." Huh? Speaking as someone who also opposes the tag appearing on the article I fail to see there's anything approximating a consensus as of this date stamp. Can you maybe just chill out a bit? Chetsford (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • How much of the BLP is "celebrity gossip" stuff, and how much is "actual biography"? I removed some of the most egregious "Daily Mail-level gossip" but the article still has very little flesh and a great deal of quite recent puff pastry in it. Collect (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    • This BLP is (still) a collection of tabloid drivel surrounded by enough biographical factoids to prevent the article's deletion. The "poor punctuation" and "disruptive individual" bits are two particularly mean-spirited inclusions that may pass the RS bar but are in no way encyclopedic. This article is Wikipedia at its worst. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep (Summoned by bot) The tag should definitely be kept, as if she has notability for anything currently, it's clearly the college-admissions scandal. One demonstration, though not proof, of that is that the article was only created after the scandal broke. Another, is that the text in the scandal section is 2/3 of the entire article (509 of 778 words). In fact, per WP:N and WP:BIO1E, it is questionable whether there should be an article about Olivia Jade at all. This is a WP:BIO1E situation; if she is notable, it is clearly because of the scandal. The scandal happened to her primarily as a result of her parents' and others' actions; the dropping of contracts and bullying happened to her as a result of stuff other people did. When you're notable primarily for something that happened to you, you end up with an article named after the event, not after the person: see for example, Death of Sandra Bland.
Possibly the material should be merged to a subsection of Lori Loughlin#Bribery scandal, or to a paragraph under 2019 college admissions bribery scandal#Involved parties and organizations. Whether in the long run a few years from now anyone will remember who she is, is a question. If she is deemed sufficiently notable to have her own article beyond BIO1E, then the article will have to have sufficient material beyond the college-admissions scandal to support that, and the scandal would end up a footnote or a brief mention. The fact that it just happened, that the article was just created, and that the scandal text occupies the majority of the article, is proof enough to me of vastly undue amount of attention being paid to the scandal, and it seems obvious that the reason is because it's so recent. Keeping the tag until the scandal is a dim memory is a slam-dunk. Mathglot (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
"This is a WP:BIO1E situation; if she is notable, it is clearly because of the scandal." In the AfD on this article the community decided by consensus (in fact, almost unanimously) that this was not the case. The fact that she received wide, expansive, in-depth, and dedicated biographical coverage in RS as many as three years prior to the earliest reporting on the scandal was cited by several editors as evidence this was not BLP1E. Chetsford (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove (Summoned by bot) If we're going to have this article at all, the material re the college admissions scandal is appropriate. Coretheapple (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the tag... the whole article is new and largely about the college admissions. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove Not one response here has addressed the biggest criticism of the tag: This is a new article on a 19 year old who has had public attention for only the last 30 months. The fact that about 50-percent of the article focuses on her activities over the last 12 of those 30 months is not indicative of recentism. Given that and the fact that there is sufficient other material about her social media career and personal life currently present in the article, I believe the recentism tag is unnecessary. - PaulT+/C 03:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove (Summoned by bot) I don't see this article as being 'slanted' toward recent events. Even if we agree that Olivia Jade is notable in her own right, this one controversy has generated far more press than the rest of her accomplishments combined. The coverage of the controversy in this article is not beyond what I would have expected there to be here, and it would not look out of place if there were other notable events covered in the article. In my opinion this tag is for articles that unduly cover recent events at the expense of other notable prior events; what events aren't we covering for Olivia Jade that we should be adding? In my mind her article will eventually fill out as she gains additional notability, but there's no harm in properly covering the one actually important event in her life thus far. CThomas3 (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    • "There's no harm in properly covering the one actually important event in her life thus far." Thank you acknowledging this article clearly falls under BLP1E. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
      LetsGoSurfing, I read through the AFD, and while I think she's definitely a borderline case, she probably does have enough independent coverage to meet the GNG. Begrudgingly that's probably how I would have voted there. But that being said, this one event is certainly the most substantive event of her young life thus far, and accordingly deserves a great deal more treatment than the fact that she vlogs and gives fashion/makeup advice. CThomas3 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Abstain as I still strongly believe the article should be deleted. I predicted during the deletion discussion that the article would promptly be forgotten by most of the Keep voters, and would remain a steaming pile of tabloid garbage. I was correct. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove undue tag of recentism - the subject is 19 years old. She has WP:RS coverage from the years 2017, 2018, and 2019. Evidently the subject's fame has been increasing since she was 17 years old, to the point that the subject now has millions of followers on social media. Now, if someone had created an article on the subject back in 2017, before the subject gained popularity, the accusation would have been that the subject failed WP:GNG. Now that the subject has gained WP:GNG in 2018 and 2019, for whatever reasons, then the new accusation is that it is all recent. By this standard, Albert Einstein is a recentism. I mean, can we look at Einstein with the perspective of a couple of millennia, like we do Aristotle and Socrates? Obviously not. Einstein is a popular classic case of pop recentism, where we mostly look at him because he is close to our time! Come back and talk to me in 2,500 years, then we can put him in the proper perspective. XavierItzm (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove I do not believe this article is slanted toward recentism. Her social media career and "fame" has only been prominent in the past couple of years and while the article may seem to be largely related to the admissions scandal to the average reader, there is a large number of references that relate to her social media career and her life in general. Cook907 (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)