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 per basically a "unanimous vote" from legitimate editors.--JForget 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Dylan[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

None of the references provided are valid. A google search only brings up headlines with no stories, links to nowhere and forum discussions. There is nothing to support the claims. Daffidd (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the content is verifiable and because this article's subject is based on a non-notable living person (their only claim to fame is being the grand-daughter of Bob Dylan but notablity isn't transferred through relationships), much of the content seems to be an elaborate hoax and would make it in violation of WP:BLP. AngelOfSadness talk 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I had also forgot to mention in my comment above that this particular article has been created and deleted twice in the last two or so days and that if the outcome of this discussion means that the article is deleted, I request that this article be salted also. AngelOfSadness talk 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, no verifiable info, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, convinced revising is worth a shot.~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder by whom and by what evidence you were convinced? Ohconfucius (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I have stated mulitple times, I have not gathered these references, however I am in the proccess of piling some reliables ones together. This task, however can not be done overnight, as I have a life outside of the computer world. Please give time for this article to be proved accurate. I will rewrite sections that are not valid. Jjonjonjon (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person does exist in human form. There is a slight problem with the way references were collected and the way the article was written. I suggest narrowing the sections until more can be confirmed. BasketcaseID (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although she is not "Paris Hilton Famous" (which may explain not many news stories to be found through google.com), she is a person whom deserves at least one or two sections of her life. Like others stated above, she does exist. In my opinion, some categories on her page should be cut down until they can be varified, later on possibly.Loconut5 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad sources, indeed. Article just needs re-writting to fit standards. That seems to be undergoing right now.Sandyche3kzl0l (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC) — Sandyche3kzl0l (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It just needs some work (ok, a lot of work).Joojoobee39 (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC) — Joojoobee39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep:I understand this wikipedia article is currently being heavily reconstructed. I agree references are bad, I'm not sure who wrote the article either.Kerrylionberry (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for sure I've teamed with other users and our mission is to transform this article into a page that can be trusted. This article was poorly written in the first place. It can be a good article with some effort!Moomooocow8 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC) — Moomooocow8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep! References are extremely bad, rest asure it's being taken care of.Kellykettles (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC) — Kellykettles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Has potential-Once you look past the mud and dirt that is encrusted onto this 'car', you can see a shiny new car everyone wants to have. Haha, so I suck at metaphors. I'm my heart I believe in this article. I've watched it for sometime now, and have seen it at it's best and at it's worst. It's been vandalized more times than a new york city subway stop. I'm presently looking into this and making appropriate changes, as per wikipedia guidlines.Maryslambchopdinner (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC) — Maryslambchopdinner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No reliable sources, no verifiable info, no notability. Heather Mae Lahey may exist, but the claim that she is Jakob Dylan's adopted daughter cannot be substantiated, nor can the rest of the information about her. Most of the references are invalid, and the others are directed to pages that can be edited by anyone, where so-called "facts" can be planted. Separatehorns (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. The sockpuppet infiltration in this thread is beyond ridiculous. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree. And it is inappropriate. However, by the substance of the arguments I am okay with giving them a chance to revise. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article in current state is not up to code. However it needs cleanup and can be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittenzrctexox5 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say-Maybe if anything, it could find it's place at wikipedia, perhaps as a stub.Kittenzrctexox5 (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see a solidly sourced article on a living person in here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and lacking in reliable sources. I'm not even convinced that the subject of this article exists, or that any sentence in this article is completely true. I note that the supporters of this article have been trying to edit the article by deleting the more poorly sourced statements, but if they keep that up, the article will be completely empty soon. (For example, the citation to a Rolling Stone issue refers to a cover date for which the magazine did not actually publish an issue.) On a separate note, I am concerned that there may be a situation in which the same person has submitted more than one "keep" recommendation in this discussion using different usernames. If that has happened, it would be a gesture of good faith for such a person to strike out ~~any of~~ their duplicative recommendations, because submitting multiple recommendations in the same discussion under different names is a violation of policy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My beef with this article is that they have not proven to me that Jakob Dylan adopted a daughter. Fixing up the article, etc is immaterial if they cannot prove this. Each day I read the official Bob Dylan and Jakob Dylan websites, and search for any article or interview I can find. There has never even been a hint of such an adoption taking place (let alone a musical collaboration). This is clearly a hoax in my opinion. Daffidd (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment- I feel sorry if you think he needs to broadcast his personal life to the world, and his adoption much like the jolie-pitts or madonna. As a true fan, you should know the entire family is very top secret. So naturally there isnt going to be a plethora of sources.( i'm sorry if that remark was out of line. It needed to be said). In my opinion, this article would fit best as a stub. Really short and to the point.And I know I've already posted on here. Jjonjonjon (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you are missing the point if you think that Daffidd expects Jakob Dylan to broadcast his personal life to the world. You say that the family is "very top secret", but you created an article about someone who you describe as Jakob's adopted daughter, even though she has never been in the public eye. So even if this article were verifiably true, the article might still warrant deletion to respect the privacy of the subject and her family. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- ok I understand the reason why it might be deleted due to privacy concerns. But I can't take someone sitting here telling me she isn't real when she has been on Bob Dylan's radio talk show numerous times. So, if it may be deleted, let it be because of privacy. I didn't "create" the article though. I reestablished it once. that's all. I did not make it in the beginning.And I still vote that it works best as a stub article, with little information. That is more private. I thought I was doing a good thing by defending a person who deserves credit for things she has done. Sorry, don't bite my head off. Jjonjonjon (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a geneological entry for a budding or would-be starlet. I feel that the subject fails WP:BIO, having no achievements of her own. It also fails WP:NOT, which states "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not... [2] Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." Having potential is not a valid 'keep' argument, as it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She has been on Instant Star and has written songs for them. How isn't that an achievement? Jjonjonjon (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment D'you mean this? None of the information can be verified. We should put an end to this charade by having it deleted (again for the third time) as a hoax, and have it salted while we're at it. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhat is that? That is not an official site for instant star wake up!. YOU ALL CAN GO SUCK ON SOME ASS WIPES!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjonjonjon (talk • contribs) 03:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You need to get improving those references, then. I clicked on the citation for that assertion, and that was the site I found. Please don't tell me to wake up when you are the one who's asloop. ;-) But then, as this appears more and more like a hoax, even you wouldn't be able to manufacture the citations to satisfy the AfD. You would be well advised to desist with the personal attacks. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Jjonjonjon warned for the comment above and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jjonjonjon filed. Iagree with letting this play out to be sorted once and for all. Suggest it then be salted. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! I know I have already spoken about this topic, but I have changed my mind. Heather Dylan just does not have enough references that are accredited. This article is in violation of the various terms of conditions like others have stated above. I believe, she also is a possible future starlet, but in the present, a page for her is not necessary.Wikipedia does not act as a family tree, and until she does something newsworthy she should not have an entry on wikipedia. I have tried improving this article, but seeing how the Dylan's are a family very concerned with privacy and safety, my search hasn't brought up many sources. I also second the fact that since they are so low key, they might not appreciate an article written about one of their children( which , also may explain why they haven't told the public they've adopted[to the poster above]) I am now in favor of deletion of this page. (I must apologize for changing my opinion the wrong way, for some reason my previous post didn't show up when I clicked edit, so I started a new one at the bottom). Thanks for reading what I think!Kerrylionberry (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references given support the facts they are linked to - except TV.com which is editable by anybody. -Hunting dog (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: In reference to Jjonjonjon's claim that Heather Dylan has appeared on Bob Dylan's radio show several times. I've listened to each one of them. Many of them more than once. No one by the name of Heather Dylan has appeared on this show, nor has mention been made of her. If you have the title or date the show was aired, I'd be happy to check again. Once again, I maintain this to be a hoax.

Daffidd (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable even if not a hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2008 (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.