Talk:Chloé Lukasiak

Promo

This article reads like a PR page... examples include "Chloe is shown to be very sweet and modest ... and has a reputation among them for being especially studious" "At competitions, she usually places high and often wins". GoddersUK (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This PR page also exists in the German version of Wikipedia: de:Chloe Lukasiak. --Ochrid (talk)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Chloe was the best on Dance Moms and has a brighter future than half of the children in this doomed country.

She is just unimoportant teenager. WHy has she given up dancing in the reality TV show Dance Moms? She could not cope with the pressure any more. --Ochrid (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no proof that she does anything professional, let alone acting. She has not belong to any cast for a TV series or film, yet. Being part of a reality TV show is not acting. This article reads like an advertisement and there are no sources for the contests which she might have won. There is no proof for most of the content of this article. --Ochrid (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the page back. I have been adding references and citations, and I have more to add, including competitions she has won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.218.199.150 (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please, please, PLEASE do not unlock this page on January 6. There is a group of people on Facebook who have plans to vandalize this page again as soon as protection is lifted. Please keep it locked down as long as possible. Chloe is a minor and needs to be protected from these people. 199.66.65.98 (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)CucFan

• Delete - currently fails WP:GNG. This article is full of trivial content and relies excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject (her own website / youtube account). Those in favor of keeping this article should attempt to improve it by replacing them with more appropiate third party sources. --Sgcosh (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sgcosh: This section refers to a contested speedy deletion eight months ago. It is not currently being considered for deletion. If you feel the article does not meet out notability guidelines and should be deleted, you will need to nominate it for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor surgery

Three editors have now removed the minor surgery Lukasiak had as trivial. The problem had zero impact on her career. If the surgery were significant, it would be widely covered in reliable sources. I see no indication of such coverage.

If you disagree, feel free to discuss the issue. (Edit warring behind an anonymous IP is no longer an option.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I just removed the same content before looking through the talk page first. I came to the talk page to discuss the content I removed. I just don't see how this is notable. Happy to discuss! Meatsgains (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem: the article includes a snippet about Miller making fun of Lukasiak's eye. There is literally no context, so it sticks out like a sore thumb, ugly though this simile is. If nothing else, this requires a footnote, which is now in the article. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Occupation fashion designer??

This article lists in three places that Lukasiak is a fashion designer (under occupation in infobox, in lead and in it's own section "Fashion career"). I propose this is removed from the article as the original source for this was an appearance on the TV show "The Doctors" on Oct 13, 2015, in which she said " ... and I have a line coming out with two major retailers, which I'm really excited about, but I can't say who, but i'm going to announce it soon." It is inaccurate to conclude she is the designer of this yet to be seen fashion line 3 months later instead of modelling for the fashion line (like she has done previously, as stated in this article). Either way her stating something doesn't make it accurate or noteworthy. Sgcosh (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur, wholeheartedly. Scr★pIron^IV 18:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Earlier I fixed the overstated mentions of this in the article which were indeed a little silly (they said she "is" a fashion designer). But I did take the time to acquaint myself with the sources of the article, as all of us should if we are going to discuss it, and, unlike one editor who said "No evidence she is pursuing fashion design", the evidence is right there, properly cited, in the References: "Dance Moms' Alum Chloe Lukasiak Dishes on Her Upcoming Fashion Line". I have removed mention of fashion design from the infobox and but ensured it is kept it in the Personal section and in the lead. Prhartcom (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Prhartcom The only statement she has ever made on this was "...I have a line coming out with two major retailers..." when she appeared on the TV show "The Doctors" in October last year, you have made an assumption that she had designed the fashion line. No where in the cited article or the original source (her appearance on the TV show) does it say she has designed a fashion line, but more likely she has modeled for a fashion line coming out, which she has done previously. Furthermore she stated in that interview that was 6 months ago that "i'm going to announce it soon.", since then a number of fashion lines have been announced that she has modeled for and zero evidence she is pursuing fashion design, from which it can be concluded this is what she was likely talking about. Sgcosh (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

All right, I don't know anything about this person, only BLPs in general, and may have been misled by the source, which, when I double-checked, was actually pretty vague about this topic. So I support completely removing mention of this, in that case. Prhartcom (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Article citation problems

This article about a living person is currently poorly sourced. It currently has 24 references listed, out of which 5 are from youtube, 6 from social media / the persons own website and and 8 from International Business Times (6 of which are the same author), raising the issue of lack of notability of the person and their work. Is someone willing to bring the article's sources up to a reliable standard, otherwise unsourced or poorly sourced material will be removed. Please see WP:RSE, and WP:NOYT for reliable source guidelines. Sgcosh (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to do some wholesale removal; this - and various other Dance Moms articles - are nothing but fluff being added to by PR firms and fanboys. Scr★pIron^IV 15:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Earlier I took a crack at this and did the best I could. We don't need to worry that the same authors or same reliable sources tend to cover this subject; that is fairly common. WP:BLP allows minimal use of the primary source of her own website in the way we are using it. I believe the sourcing is according to policy now. Prhartcom (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree completely with user:ScrapIronIV above - it's stunning to me that anyone could say the dancers/cast on a globally-broadcast (110+ countries) reality show that is now starting its 7th season are "fluff" or otherwise irrelevant. Saying "feel free to do some wholesale removal" of this or other Dance Moms-related pages seems to not only fail to prevent but actively encourage the sort of vandalism we have seen with this article and a few other Dance Moms articles. These girls have more social media followers than well-known "household names" -- and that is the future. When someone like Chloe Lukasiak comes along and has almost 5 million Instagram followers (even some very well-known athletes have far less), you have to take that seriously because today's culture relies on social media to enjoy reading about and even interacting with celebrities in a way that was unimaginable in the past. On this show, the nominal "stars" or lead roles ended up being the fluff - the moms. The girls, seen as an afterthought at first, became the stars, and almost all of them are branching out into many types of entertainment (acting, dancing, music). Teenagers and young girls see them as role models. Some of them are covered extensively and frequently in the teen press. They are no less relevant than the teen stars of the 1970s and 1980s - Kristy McNichol, etc. Just because a person's sources are largely online does not automatically make them unreliable or insignifcant. These are teenage girls. They didn't grow up in a time when everything was written only in a book or magazine. I am almost 50 years old, and even I can see that. 159.218.3.109 (talk)Cucfan —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

DOB and Personal Life section

An editor keeps removing the date of birth of the subject and the Personal life section of the article, citing as a reason to do so a Wikipedia joke page as well as insisting that the information is "trivial". Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons allows for both of these in an article, and most BLP articles on Wikipedia have both of them. WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:PUBLICFIGURE give allowances for facts such as the subject's marriage, divorce, dating, etc. as long as the article simply documents what reliable sources say. WP:DOB allows the use of the subject's date of birth (unless they complain) and WP:BLPSELFPUB allows citing it to the primary source of subject's website (subject to conditions which are met by this article). I have reverted the editor's attempt to keep this out of the article. If the editor wishes to discuss it below after reading the linked policy, they are welcome to do so. Prhartcom (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The DOB cited is not a WP:RS as it is a WP:PRIMARY source for biographical data. We are talking a minor here, not an adult who is able to enter into such "agreements" on usage of personal data. What other articles can and do include is immaterial here. Just because some piece of trivial data has a source does not warrant its inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Scr★pIron^IV 13:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV, did you read the relevant policies that I linked? It sounds like you believe your opinion is what's more important here. Prhartcom (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, particularly the part about Wikipedia not being a tabloid. And the part about obeying the law in all countries, including the United States - where information about one's medical record is especially controlled. And we are also concerned about maintaining the privacy of minors. The subject of the article is a minor, and does not "control" the content on their site in the same way a person of the age of majority can. Err on the side of caution, as specified in the relevant policies you linked. Scr★pIron^IV 14:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Since you have read the applicable policy, let's have no more arguments that are solely your opinion and nothing to do with policy, such as repeatedly justifying your position because "we are talking a minor here". The tabloid argument is not applicable: Believe me, I'm not happy about defending this particular BLP as I don't care about teenagers or romance, as I see you don't either, but notable people do have personal lives, and policy states we can document it in their articles subject to certain conditions which are already met. The medical event the subject experienced is published in reliable sources and stated as fact by the subject herself in those sources, so we're not revealing anything not allowed by policy. I already discussed the allowed use of the subject's primary sources, and this article meets those conditions as well.

Really, this is not about winning this argument. Please don't take this personally or go digging into ways you can beat me. This isn't a game. You and I are just doing our part to build an encyclopedia. Let's get along and work together to do the right thing for Wikipedia. Please reply with your suggestions for what we can put into the Personal life section of this article. Prhartcom (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

What we can do is not always what we should do. Things that are allowed are not always preferred. So, I do agree. Let's stick to what is of encyclopedic value, and not allow this article become a fanpage. Scr★pIron^IV 16:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Good, I'm so glad we found some common ground, I entirely agree. I don't know if you saw this page before I made my first edit to it, but that's pretty much what it was. Sometimes contributors to Wikipedia love to violate Wikipedia policy. So getting back to my question, what do you think should go in the Personal life section? Other editors have included the following facts. As you comment about each one, please check the sources cited to each one to help you decide. Also keep in mind that if, hypothetically, this were a nomination for a WP:GA, this article should be "broad in its coverage" (meaning, it should not leave anything significant out):

• an illness and the treatment for it
• a list of her former ALDC teammates, each name accompanied by its own source
• a guest appearance on The Doctors
• a fashion line coming out
• a relationship with the Disney actor Ricky Garcia

Prhartcom (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The illness - Sourced to Seventeen Magazine, and describing what amounts to a clogged sinus, and had mucus drained through surgery. If she broke her leg, and had a long recovery to return to dance - that would be notable. This minor issue is not a notable life event.

A list of her team mates should include only notable team mates who have their own article. Anything more should be covered by the ALDC article, assuming it is notable enough to have one. "She spends time with her friends" is not a notable event for a teenager. Notability is not WP:INHERITED

Her appearance on The Doctors is noted already, but as it is connected to a potential fashion line would be worthy of text connected to the fashion line announcement.

The fashion line itself is not notable yet, but needs more information. Who is sponsoring it, has it been picked up for sale, or is it just vaporware? If it is just talk, no contract, then it's not worth mentioning. If she has a retail chain supporting her, it is worth noting.

Who a 14 year old is "dating" is nothing more than fodder for tabloids. If she gets engaged, it becomes notable.

Scr★pIron^IV 20:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV, I see an IP has added back the Personal life section, but I urge you to cease your disruptive edit warring by reflexively deleting all of it. You may be correct about one or two points above, but you are not correct in your thinking that a BLP cannot have a Personal life section. Of course it can; see any of the BLP policy and any other BLP article. Now, what goes into that section is another matter, and you are certainly invited to take part in the discussion to decide that. Is this agreed? All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there can be a personal life section - as soon as there is anything of encyclopedic value to add to it. Thus far, there hasn't been. I am engaged on the talk page. I have "reflexively" deleted anything. Scr★pIron^IV 18:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for clarifying that, as it has been looking like you were demonstrating otherwise, and thank-you for watching the article. Prhartcom (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV, it's fine that you are maintaining integrity of this article, but you're going to have to cite Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines instead of repeatedly citing a Wikipedia joke as justification for your actions, as there is a difference between the two (one was intended to guide editors and the other was intended only to amuse and not meant to be taken seriously). Any further edits of yours that cite of a joke instead of a policy in the future will be reverted. I hope this explanation of the difference was helpful, and thanks for maintaining the article. Prhartcom (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It is an adequate description of why such unencyclopedic nonsense continues to get removed. Come up with something notable for this youngster's personal life, and it will be taken seriously. I have brought it to the talk page, and discussed it in full. Reverting for the sake of an edit summary - when things have been discussed in detail - would be disruptive. I would recommend that an experienced editor not take that course of action. Scr★pIron^IV 12:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough; it would be. I believe we understand each other. —Prhartcom♥ 13:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Notability of television interviews & Awards

Her appearances as a guest on 'The Today Show' (2011), 'Anderson Live' & 'Katie' (2012) and 'good morning america' (2013) should be removed from the television section as they are not notable events. Actors and celebrities frequently attend 100s of TV interviews throughout their careers, these do not automatically meet the notability requirements for inclusion on wikipedia. They have been previously removed from this article and reinstated by other editors without providing a reason for including them. It's now been 10 months since I attached 'citation needed' tags, and no editors have provided any citations. Adhering to WP:BLP i'm removing the unsourced content. Please use the talk page if you think the content merits inclusion in this article. On the other hand her appearances on 'The View' and 'The Doctors' do merit inclusion in this article as her performance / interviews from those appearances have been covered by reliable sources. Secondly with regards to the Awards section. Teen Magazine online polls such as J-14 fail to meet notability requirements for wikipedia. There is no actual award, it's just an annual online poll the magazine runs for its readers. Numerous magazines and websites now do this and call them 'awards'. Seeing as they lack an actual award, and they are not covered by sources outwith the magazines themselves, I fail to be convinced that these online polls should be included on wikipedia. Sgcosh (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I have removed this content that was re-added by an editor without citations. MarsToutatis ^talk 20:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)