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 no consensus‎. Views are split between keeping and merging, neither of which requires administrator action and can be done in a discussion now this AfD has closed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Hildebrandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a WP:BIO1E case, most reliable standalone coverage that can be found (both on the article and in my WP:BEFORE search) is in the context of the subject's criminal trial and conviction. Unlike the other person involved in the case, Ruby Franke, there does not appear to be enough coverage for an individual BLP, and that is why I believe this specific biographical article just barely misses the criteria of WP:PERPETRATOR, and should be redirected to Ruby Franke as a result. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Crime, Latter Day Saints, Internet, Arizona, and Utah. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (creator): There's at least one 2012 source, so not obviously one event for BLP1E. WP:PERPETRATOR: or put another way per 1. and 2. arguably satisfied. WP:BLP1E 1. not satisfied 2. as a Youtuber: not satisfied 3. substantial role so not satisfied. I agree with the overall sentiment of this nom, but the details push this over to a BLP for me, hence creation. This could be safer as an event article, but we have a clearcut notable bio at Ruby Franke, which would not get merged into an event. Widefox; talk 21:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Each point on the page has sources to substantiate the comments, and any readers can find further information about it. There is another reason why its important to keep the page up, and it is because there is confusion about her 'qualifications'. I've seen some refer to her as a 'Life Coach', however based on teh sourced information Ruby was deregistered as a counsellor for violation the ethical professional code and making disclosures. This is a completely different matter - a Life coach is not a profession that has a regulatory body. Counsellors do. To refer to her as Life coach actually minimises the offence and in fact invalidates her victim who has stated their life was destroyed. Elle2AU (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC) — Elle2AU (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Merge to Ruby Franke. Hildebrandt has insufficient notability of her own separate from her association with Franke to warrant having a separate article. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In popular parlance: Insufficient enough to be played by Heather Locklear? Widefox; talk 13:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How does being portrayed by a famous actress mean that Hildebrandt has her own notability? Virtually all coverage of Hildebrandt in reliable sources is in connection to Franke, and as noted by this user there is not enough standalone coverage to merit her own BLP article per WP:PERPETRATOR. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED for further information. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • I did say in popular parlance, not our criteria. There's ongoing sources for notability covering the pre-Franke era "Jodi Hildebrandt" [1], pre-Franke allegations: "Niece of Jodi Hildebrandt, Ruby Franke's business partner, speaks out about alleged abuse" [2], and sources with the subject centre stage [3] [4] [5] [6], focus on her assets wrt proceedings [7] [8], [9], "cult leader" allegation [10], many news sources with focus on the subject [11], IMDB entry [12] (I'm sure that doesn't count for WP:N), "The religious extremism of Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt" [13] (equal footing), ongoing equal footing [14]. Widefox; talk 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • JeffSpaceman, WP:BIO1E If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. the significant event is arguable, here goes: the nature of the criminal acts whilst hiding in plain sight on youtube with these specific religious, family and coaching dimensions. What's the event? It's our framework, but is it useful? The criminal act(s) (an event) are just one aspect of the situation with these youtubers, as show by the range of sources, also covering the pre-Franke and post-Franke bio. Widefox; talk 17:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Not a lot to say and duplicative as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you reason, as !vote. As notability is not (just) one event I doubt the BLP1E nom actually applies. As Anome said (below) more concisely than I, this meets PERP. Widefox; talk 22:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see WP:BLUDGEON. There is no need to respond to every vote that disagrees with your personal stance on this AfD. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets item 2 of WP:PERPETRATOR, and that's all that's needed here. We have plenty of cases where multiple perpetrators each have their own seperate articles, and there's no reason why this shouldn't be another one of them. — The Anome (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per The Anome. Wellington Bay (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2025 (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.