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 and Redirect to List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK). --Haemo 03:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charley Kazim Uchea[edit]

Charley Kazim Uchea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Redirect. Uchea is not notable. Apppearing on Big Brother, doing interviews in papers and magazines, and an appearance on The Weakest Link do not make someone notable. If it did nearly all housemates would get their own pages. The person who created this page User:Zingostar is unwilling to accept a redirect, insisting she is notable (although he's not keen to discuss the issue with me), so a deletion discussion should settle the matter once and for all. If she goes onto becoming a TV presenter (like Nikki or Jade), then fair enough. But at the moment the page is either a repeat of what is on List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK) or rumour getting her own show or appearing on Strictly Come Dancing.--UpDown 14:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "And will probably be a contestant on Strictly Come Dancing" - according to a rumour on Digital Spy. Again, this is rumour. Having articles on other Wikipedias does not mean notable, they may well be deleted or redirected later. And to say its in "bad faith" is very bizarre. I do hope you are not taking this personally. --UpDown 14:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When someone redirects a page without any discussion and does it on loose grounds what do you expect, that i should be happy against you? and yes redirecting a page without discussion is vandalism but i dont want to discuss it lets see what the people think.and you should always write "Comment" before answering on a afd.byebye--Zingostar 14:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yes over 98,000 articles says something about her notability my friend their are articles here on wikipeida about persons with less.--Zingostar 14:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you would stop lecturing me on how to use Wikipedia. If responding to comment you do what I did. This makes it clear what I'm responding to. And it is not bad faith. She clearly fails WP:BIO and I did discuss with you anyway. Not everything has to be discussed first anyway. If an editor believes are an article is unneeded then they should redirect it. The fact she has "98,000" google hits (I doubt all these are about her) is frankly immaterial. I'm sure other former housemates have similar numbers (Chanelle perhaps?). Doesn't mean they are notable for Wikipedia. --UpDown 14:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you changed my edits again. my god.please dont change correct edits like Comment just to mess things around.--Zingostar 15:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read up on how deletion discussion works before you incorrectly change the format of my edit. "Comment" is not necessary where you put it. --UpDown 15:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Childish,but just proving my point that you are a vandaliser.will not be answering any more of your immature messages and childish fightd about insignificent things here. will be back when the afd voting is over.--Zingostar 15:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war on my own - that would be challening!! Again, I apologise if you have taken this personally. You should not take things personally on Wikipedia, otherwise this happens. Lecturing other users on how to use Wikipedia is not a good way to endear yourself to people either. Anyway, lets hope more people get involved in this. --UpDown 15:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First of all Uchea has a article on both swedish and simple english wikipedia. I think this afd is just in bad faith. Uchea has numours articles on the web if you search on google you find 98,400 pages about her and she has appeared on The Weakest Link and will probably be a contestant on Strictly Come Dancing. And that 2 other editors didnt find her to be not notable says something to me. I say keep since she is notable--Zingostar 14:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep She seems notable to me--217.209.116.113 15:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Sock !vote. See below.--Chaser - T 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above IP address has made edits that a very, very similar to User:Zingostar. I would suspect they are the same person, as this user has had sockpuppets before. --UpDown 17:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats irrelevent. You can't prove that its the same person so their opinion has to be taken into account.--Hiltonhampton 17:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think there are ways to prove it. Regardless, its useful for editors to know so they think about it themselves and make their own judegment.--UpDown 17:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think this voting is about my character but about rather Charley is notable or not.and most people here seems to think so. so cool down a bit.--Zingostar 18:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Zingostar 24 hours for sockpuppetry based upon this diff. A friendly reminder that AFD is not just a headcount, and single-purpose accounts are routinely disregarded in assessing consensus at AFDs. IPs are a similar case.--Chaser - T 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She has made several appearances on the Friday Night project (I know all housemates do but she has appeared the most.) She has had many publicised brawls with well known people, so thats worth writing about. She has had two MTV shows recently. And she appeared on 8 out of 10 cats.--Hiltonhampton 16:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Several appearances on the Friday Night project" - that is not notablity, either is appearing on a Big Brother edition of 8 Out of 10 Cats. Most housemates appear on TV a lot and in papers/magazines while the show is running and briefly after, but in a couple of months fade out of the limelight. --UpDown 17:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not all BB contestants are notable, but she's up there with Jade Goody and Nick Bateman as one of the ones who'll build a career out of it. Already enough coverage of her unrelated to BB that WP:BLP1E no longer applies — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to wait for judging whether she'll have a career out of it. Big Brother finished a few days ago. I say redirect, and if she is still on your screens etc in a couple of months fine. But at the moment, this is not sufficient notablity outside Big Brother. --UpDown 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why not? The more information on Wikipedia the better! Also you couldn't fit all the info on the main page with out it being ten times longer than all the other housemates.--88.151.83.34 17:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more information the better is not true, not if the information is trivial. And a lot of the information is rumour & what if's and should be deleted. --UpDown 17:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see what i man UpDown the most people think its a notable article. Just as i told you.--Zingostar 18:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Charley is more notable at the moment then Nikki Grahame for example.--Zingostar 18:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 88.151.83.34 has never been used outside this discussion, and is most likely a sock puppet. - LeonWhite 19:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - not notable outside Big Brother. - LeonWhite 19:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Its always a sockpuppet when it is a vote against what the person self believes is right. come up with something better will you.--Zingostar 19:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch that LeonWhite is not a sockpuppet, but a valuable contributor, who I have seen make may good edits. John Hayes^talk 22:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misundestood that, you never accused Leon of being a sockpuppet (though I still think he is a valuable contributor) John Hayes^talk 07:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. Not notable outside Big Brother, and we have the information in the list of housemates article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cant agree with hisspace the article provides additional information far more then the small thing on the big brother site. and for that mather charley is notable on her own as most of the votes shows.--Zingostar 20:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was all unsourced material, which is something that Wikipedia is not for.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nothing but her time about her time on Why Bother (aka Big Brother) and tabloid crap that would be deemed unsuitable as encyclopaedia material. Also is full of waffle that I could hack it into a stub article, but the problem is, it is unsourced and I would rather kill this article off. So what if she is signed as the same agent as McCall, O'Leary, Goody and Brand, does that make her notable. As for SCD, so has Grace from last year who won another unrelated acrobat "reality" (that I don't know the name of) show but an article hasn't exist to this date and what about other ex-reality TV contestants who appear on other shows and nothing else, does that make them notable. Willirennen 20:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are their if you bathered to look and not judge just because it is a reality show star.with over 98000 pages on google i would like to add.i also condemn this users language. and that the person seem to look at reality show stars like less then other personalities jus proves my point.--Zingostar 20:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we have pages on Nikki Grahame ,Jade Goody and many other big brother stars so why not this one?--Zingostar 20:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me what is unsourced & I will try my best to fix that problem. Also if we have a page for Alison Hammond & Michelle Bass, I think its fair to say that Charley is almost as sucessful as them already!--Hiltonhampton 21:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well don't tell me to go look up these pages, you go do that yourself, I'm too busy as I am working on a new article plus working on other articles . Going back to this article, for citing articles, refer to Wikipedia:Footnotes as you can see that tag underneath that edit summary box. Also what language. Also, don't attempt to use Hammond, Bass, Goody, Grahame name to highlight Charlie whatsaname's notability as isn't that mere speculation or crystalballing, also that lot have either long term showbiz career or their own TV show. Also don't ever think of using their names as an excuse for claiming Charley's so-called notability. Willirennen 03:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone removes the trivia/un-referenced stuff to create two or three pars of encyclopedic info. Otherwise, redirect. Have reformatted this page, because it was just as big a dog's breakfast as the article in question. Moriori 21:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section gone! Again could someone please tell me whats unsourced!--Hiltonhampton 21:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all unsourced. Having a list of references at the bottom is not proper referencing, in-line citation is needed. Alison Hammond is a TV presenter, while Michelle Bass is a model, coloumnist and has appeared in a film. All of these are recent things, which means her fame has lasted longer than the 15 second Big Brother provides. Jade Goody has a page for obvious reasons, she a household name for starters (which Charley is not). Nikki Grahame got her own TV show. It is interesting that Zingostar and Hiltonhampton both accuse other users of POV, when they are the ones with POV. Zingostar has created articles before with dubious notablity, and one many AfD this evening has voted to keep every article. For a relevant policu on why she's not notable see WP:NOT#INFO. Wikipedia is not a biography site. S/he has also tried to have the page protected (a request declinced), tried to have the afd closed (rejected) and tried to get me banned (also rejected). This user has taken the proposed deletion of a page he created far too personally. Anyway, back to the topic: Reality show contestants are not notable unless their fame remains, and it is to early to tell this for Charley. The page should be redirected. If she's still around this time next year, then re-create. At present this page is awful, full of rumour and reads like a fansite. At the end of day, Charley is not notable long term. This is an enyclopedia not a tabloid newspaper site. --UpDown 21:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. If it weren't for Big Brother there'd be next to nothing in the article. She's simply not notable enough by herself. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 22:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound stupid but what does in-line citation mean? I f I knew then perhaps fix the problem! Please don't talk to me about Jade or Nikki, as I didn't mention them because I know that they have both sucessful careers.Lets not start an edit war!--Hiltonhampto:n 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:CITE John Hayes^talk 22:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per UpDown, LeonWhite, Seaserpent. She is not notable enough yet for her own article. Most of the article also fails WP:BLP and as such that content must be deleted ASAP. John Hayes^talk 22:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect until alternative notability is established. -- Roleplayer 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - Appearing on reality shows solely does not make one notable Corpx 04:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete she is not notable yet, and given the public dislike of her I doubt she will be anything more than a footnote in the BB history. Darrenhusted 13:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep according to this, WP:REALITY, she passes two of the criterias. She may also pass three if in fact she does appear on Strictly come dancing.--88.151.83.34 15:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that User:88.151.83.34 have double voted as keep, there would it be a good to declare this vote null and void, just press ctrl-F, copy the ip number and press next and you will see the evidence. Willirennen 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to cancel all the other votes, I am sure that when the reviewing admin sees this, they will notice the double vote. John Hayes^talk 17:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  According to the big red cross at the top of WP:REALITY that is not a valid Wikipedia guideline. Also I fail to see where she meets two of the criteria anyway. If she appears on Strictly Come Dancing, create an article then. -- Roleplayer 16:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a hard time seeing how she can fail to be notable. and certainly since the article now is with new information and without the BB article info. but people here on wikipedia has a tendency to look down on reality show stars as less of persons then let say a politician. this is obvious here that people are voting on her personality more then on actuall facts and thats ashame for wikipedia.especially since a vandal account put on the Afd tag.--217.209.116.113 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "Vandal account" - Interesting. Because I don't think someone is notable that makes me a vandal. Again, I suspect the above IP address is a sockpuppet of User:Zingostar, a user who I am tempted to report, because frankly I'm fed up with being called a vandal and being told I'm acting in bad faith. It's very, very bad practise to insult people like that. And there is no looking down on people here, we are simply not assuming someone who has minor celebrity for a few months is notable. Over 100 people have appeared on the UK Big Brother, are they all notable? No of course not, and to suggest otherwise is to live in dreamworld. If you want articles on people like Charley while not create your own website? --UpDown 17:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as bad as you redirecting pages without any dialogue,talk about bad practise.--Zingostar 17:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting a page, when it is not controversial is not bad practice Zingostar. The consensus is clearly heading for delete, which backs the original redirect. John Hayes^talk 22:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly? hahaha and yes redirecting a page without any dialogue with the writer is bad practise... but i dont care. he has had his fun, i have saved this article and can put it up when ever i want.. for example when she is on stricly come dancing. cheers.--Zingostar 19:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The writer? You might want to read WP:OWN. and from WP:MERGE, if the merge is not controversial: Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument. If you would like to dicuss this further I suggest we do so on our talk pages, so as not to clog this page. John Hayes^talk 07:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just another wannabe from Big Brother who will be forgotten about in six months. Non-notable. - fchd 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if anon users are seen as vandals, then I would like to suggest make all votes from them invalid at all nominations and ban them all from voting. I want to point out if they are not allowed to create page, then why should they be allowed to AfD vote. Also to point out, an anon can be a user in disgiuse, they can just go to a library and any educational facility, friend/families' house and carry out votes without being detected, if this comes out as keep we all should try that for every AfD votes. The bottom line like it has been brought up, I am suspecting that these anon users are sockpuppets. Willirennen 23:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported the suspected sockpuppets, we will see what happens with that. Apologies to Zingostar if it is not the case. John Hayes^talk 07:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can I point out the Simple English article [1] is far more coherent and informative than this version. If only it had references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 01:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest it even more reinforces why the page should be deleted. It's a very short article which only talks about her on Big Brother. There are no claims to notablity other than Big Brother. --UpDown 07:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"ostentatious" needs altering on that simple English wiki site as that is not what I call simple English. Willirennen 13:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the subject is noteable and WP:BLP1E no longer applies. Dalejenkins | 17:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you like to explain how she is notable? I note you redirect Chanelle's page to List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK), so why do then believe Charley is notable but Chanelle is not. To be honest Chanelle has appeared in more magazines than Charley, so I can't understand your logic, Neither are notable enough for own page. --UpDown 17:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the boring cow-she wasnt anywhere near the final. People just want to forget about the bint. 82.27.238.166 18:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? John Hayes^talk 19:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, popular "culture" fancruft. --Servant Saber 10:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just plain nn apart from being on a reality show, a redirect would be fine. Carlossuarez46 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Not yet notable outside of Big Brother. A Sheep 09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete much of this article is not notable and also needs citation Mikyt90 22:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.