Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazel Keech
- 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 keep.
]Hazel Keech
- Hazel Keech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of this article has requested it be deleted via OTRS (ticket:2012060210001783). As a courtesy, I am filing this request on their behalf.Tiptoety talk 18:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedia team
Thank you for your email response.
I would like to delete the following Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Keech
The page was originally created in 2007 when I had just started my first film. At the time I was young (18) and was given little time to complete the page after the production company set it up. Since I was only just starting out it was necessary to put in some "filler" information that now, being a full-fledged actress with professional credits, isn't up to standards and needs to be updated to be more professional.
The problem is that a third party (5 Albert Square) has somehow been made 'moderator' of my page and thus, appears to have complete control over what information can and cannot be listed on the page.
I have tried numerous times to edit the page only to have 5-Albert-Square delete my edits and, ultimately, reword my page in a way that paints me in a negative light. For instance, regarding my involvement in the Harry Potter films (I was an extra in films 2, 3, and 4, hired through the casting agency Redroofs) 5-Albert-Square wrote, "She claims she was a part of the Harry Potter film series, as the friend of protagonist Harry Potter in the second, third, and forth installments.[6][citation needed] However, she is not seen in the movie nor is there any proof of her being in the films."
The issue here is that many people, in India especially, look to Wikipedia as a first source when searching for information regarding an individual. These people could be reporters, publicists, people I work with, people I aspire to work with, or fans. Regardless of who it is the majority of them are unaware that what they are reading is subject to the views of an individual who has nothing whatsoever to do with the person being written about. Wikipedia promotes itself as the "online encyclopedia that anyone can edit" yet, in reality, it appears to be run by a relatively small number of people referred to as 'moderators' who, for some reason, have the ability to overrule all others who may want to contribute.
My point is if someone like this moderator finds information about me, which they believe to be untrue, then why don't they just delete that section instead of writing in such a negative fashion? Now when people go to my Wikipedia page, rather than reading an unbiased account it appears as though I am being called out as a liar. Does this seem right to you?
TO CLARIFY: I was, in fact, an extra in 3 of the Harry Potter films. I was cast and hired through Redroofs Casting in London, England.
It is this negative, distasteful tone on my Wikipedia page that is damaging to my image and why I urge, and have been urging, Wikipedia to step in and do the right thing, which is either to delete this current page or allow me, personally, to be the moderator so that I can clean up the page. I think this is the only way to insure that other moderators, like 5-Albert-Square, don't tarnish someone else's name and work.
If you require proof of identify from me I will happily send that across. I just don't appreciate being permanently blocked from correcting a page that's about me.
Please assist further
Hazel Keech
- Keep, if we can source it, it should be kept for negative or for positive details. I will address and clean up the article when I wake up and update my rationale if this changes or it is indeed not notable. talk) 18:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article, she's clearly a notable actress. But Ms Keech is quite right about the implied accusations of fraud; according to WP:BLP they're not appropriate unless some reliable source has specifically accused her of lying about being in Harry Potter (which as far as I can tell none has, and it seems like a perfectly believable claim), so I've deleted that section. 111.192.136.3 (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - several individual profile articles in several of India's top national press outlets seems to easily meet the WP:GNG requirements. Previous self promotion or improper BLP phrasings are a reason to keep an eye on the article, but not delete. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 12 June 2013 (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.