Doctorfluffy (talk | contribs) →Gail Trimble: delete |
Colonel Warden (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
*This girl is special - she deserves a Wiki page. It will expand further info about Uni Challenge. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/92.0.142.207|92.0.142.207]] ([[User talk:92.0.142.207|talk]]) 01:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> |
*This girl is special - she deserves a Wiki page. It will expand further info about Uni Challenge. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/92.0.142.207|92.0.142.207]] ([[User talk:92.0.142.207|talk]]) 01:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> |
||
*'''Delete'''. Clear case of [[WP:ONEEVENT]]. [[User:Doctorfluffy|Doctorfluffy]] <small>([[User talk:Doctorfluffy|robe and wizard hat]])</small> 09:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. Clear case of [[WP:ONEEVENT]]. [[User:Doctorfluffy|Doctorfluffy]] <small>([[User talk:Doctorfluffy|robe and wizard hat]])</small> 09:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' [[WP:BLP1E]] is being misunderstood and misapplied. Her notability does not arise from having been arbitrarily involved in a notable event. Her position is that of an outstanding performer and her notability is directly due to her own talents and deeds. She is thus comparable to an Olympic gold medalist or other major contest winner. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 10:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:56, 28 February 2009
Gail Trimble
- Gail Trimble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I'm going to make myself unpopular by nominating this one now – I can see a lot of people are working on it – but this seems to me to be exactly the kind of biography of a living person Wikipedia should not be hosting. This is an absolute textbook example of a person notable for one event, with recentism providing an inflated dose of "notability". Yes, she is the highest ever scorer on a particular quiz show; but every points-based quiz show ever has a highest scorer. She has no apparent other notable achievements (or at least, none that have been sourced), and while she obviously is very bright and may well go on to be a leading academic, she is not one yet.
Most of the arguments made on the talk page in favor of keeping this article seem to be variations of "received a lot of media coverage". Yes, this can sometimes be a pointer towards notability, but it does not mean notability. If I'm permitted to violate WP:CRYSTAL myself for a moment, it seems unlikely she will be receiving any coverage in a month's, let alone a year's, time, unless she has some other achievement.
There's also a do-no-harm issue here. The article itself states that the subject is uncomfortable with media coverage, and this is by no stretch a case where the subject is of such importance that they need to be covered regardless of their wishes. At the time I write this, almost 50% of the article is occupied by a "Cultural impact" section. Quite aside from the dubiousness of a "cultural impact" section on someone who has only been even marginally famous for three days, this section is basically a laundry-list of assorted personal attacks on her which have been made by various media figures, and discussion of said attacks.
I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I don't see how this article is ever going to be viable unless and until she has some other significant achievement to her credit, and believe it needs to go back to being the redirect to University Challenge it began as. Flames to the usual place, please. – iridescent 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nom that this person is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Her media coverage is entirely about one event and not one that is worthy of an biography in an encyclopedia. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Strong delete for reasons specified above. Wikipedia is not about pop culture opr 15 minutes of fame. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Strong delete per well-detailed above argument. WP:BLP1E, specifically. Adam Zel (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep. If she were simply and solely the captain of a team which won a TV programme, she would not be sufficiently notable for an article, in my view. But that is not the case. Her success in the programme has led to massive - and I use that word quite advisedly - media interest in the UK, which has focussed on the extent of her dominance of that programme and, even more, on the hostile reaction that there has been to her success in some areas of society (blogs etc.) - and what that means for British society. She has been claimed by a columnist of a serious national newspaper as being "more divisive than anyone since Thatcher" - quite a claim, one which justifies the need to publish information about her that people can look into. The relationship between the way in which she is being treated to the way in which the contrasting figure of Jade Goody is being treated has been seized on by numerous commentators, such as Melanie Phillips, as indicating something fundamental about British society. She is, at the moment, a very important figure in discussions about UK society, and people have a right to expect that WP will provide neutral and unbiased information about her. "The subject is uncomfortable with media coverage..." Not so - she's obviously and unsurprisingly uncomfortable with the nature and quality of some of the media coverage, but the fact that she has appeared on national Breakfast TV, given other media interviews, had photos of her as a child published in the local press, and even before her success appeared in university publicity, suggests she's not opposed to publicity per se, just bad and irresponsible publicity - which is not in any way what this article does. "Wikipedia is not about pop culture..." Why on earth not? - it can cover high culture and pop culture more than adequately. And perhaps anyone who thinks she's not notable could try hitting the "random article" button to see how many articles it will take before hitting an article with 6000 hits in a year, let alone in 4 days which is what this article has had. Like it or not, there is a demand for information about her, and there is no good reason why WP should not meet that demand. Seriously, if she was in the US not the UK would anyone dare propose deleting the article? Of course not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Question- Would you say the coverage has been similar to that of Ken Jennings? If it is, then Im ight be persuaded to change my response to just a straightforward Keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Quite some article there! - never having heard of Ken Jennings before, I've no idea about the extent of press coverage in that case - but what interests me about Trimble is not so much her ability to answer quiz questions (though that is, perhaps, almost unprecedented) but on the cultural impact she has had, and the questions that is raising in the UK. If we were being more than usually pedantic, I could support renaming the article to "Cultural impact of Gail Trimble's appearances on University Challenge 2009" - but that would be a bit silly, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- And do you honestly believe, too, that in a week, two weeks time, the media interest will still be there? Achromatic (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Who knows? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Question- Would you say the coverage has been similar to that of Ken Jennings? If it is, then Im ight be persuaded to change my response to just a straightforward Keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and rename/rewrite- While yes, there are BLP1E issues here, I think that the event is notable enough, as demonstrated by the numerous sources cited in the article, that it should be covered here. However I think it should be named and re-written to cover things based on the events, not the person. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also of interest to this deletion discussion(?): Her mention in the Nuts (magazine) article. --Ali'i 16:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I just removed it - she is no more notable than anybody else who declined such an offer. The criticism section was added by an IP yesterday and is a big load of unsourced bollocks anyway. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Addendum: Someone might want to have a run through Category:Jeopardy! contestants to check for other similar cases (only about 30 articles or so). For instance, I'd say on par (or even less so) with this article is someone like Larissa Kelly. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at that article I'd warn strongly against this being considered a similar case. Trimble's notability is not as a one-off quiz show contestant - it is as a quiz show contestant whose success has led to very widespread high profile coverage across the UK, and where this has snowballed to the extent that the nature of that coverage itself has been the subject of comment and debate by highly regarded national media figures (and even Jonathan Ross!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. As above, this is similar to Ken Jennings. There is more information here than would reasonably be included in another article. If the article were nothing more than just a description of the show, it would be one thing, but independent reliable sources have covered her in a broader context (for example the sources referenced in the background section). For people interested in this issue from a policy perspective, there is also currently an ongoing debate on WP:ONEVENT at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Cool3 (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Jennings was on multiple, multiple shows (in line to co-host another), is the focus of a board game, gained commercial endoresments, and is an author of 2 books and a columnist. Trimble ain't Jennings. (Yet?) Fairly absurd to compare the two at this point. --Ali'i 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly Jennings is far more notable now, but take a look at an older version of the article. For example [1]. There was a time when Jennings had even less coverage than Trimble does, that's the point I was really making. Game show winners can certainly be notable. Cool3 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- So because Jennings had an article in 2004 (before we had any kind of biographies of living people policy, by the way), we should have an article on Trimble in 2009? That argument is fail. --Ali'i 20:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not the argument I was making. Argument is: major winners of game shows who attract significant media attention are notable. What the BLP policy says is:"Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them". Do dozens of mentions in the most-read publications in Britain make someone "low-profile"? I rather doubt it. Furthermore, she is rapidly gaining significance beyond the "one event" that people may talk about. From the Financial Times, "Gail Trimble, the extraordinarily knowledgeable captain of the Corpus Christi (Oxford) team which won the latest run of University Challenge, a BBC quiz show, has stimulated a series of debates" [2]. "Stimulated a series of debates", sounds to me like an indication of significance and more than just a low-profile person who happened to make it into the news. Cool3 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect - While I believe this will serve as a useful redirect to University Challenge (which is why I created it on Monday), I don't believe there is any justification for a full article. She is known for one event and that event can briefly be mentioned in the University Challenge article. If she should become more notable in the future (say as a television presenter or even Paxman's replacement should he ever step down as University Challenge host) then she can have her own biography. But somehow I doubt that's going to happen. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Selective merge into University Challenge 2009. The media response to Gail Trimble is a notable aspect of the 2009 series – but she isn't independently notable, and a biographical article about her will be impossible to keep up to date without violation of privacy. EALacey (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Even better. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep. has received much attention in lots of different media. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The only reliable sources for anything connected with Ms Trimble are to do with the fact that she did very well on a quiz program. There are no reliable secondary sources for her biographical details. This is the very definition of People notable only for one event, and this article is paradigmatic for when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Textbook case. Anna Rundell (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it could also be a case of "In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved". I'd say this is probably true here. (full disclosure: I recently wrote most of the text at WP:BIO1E) Cool3 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Really? A brief media flurry makes this person more famous than the whole of the previous 47 years of the show? Anna Rundell (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The many references assert verifiable notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Reference justify it. Me677 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems a textbook case of WP:BLP1E to me. Look at the dates on the references. When they are separated by more than
36 days I might reconsider. Kevin (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC) - Keep. The multiple references from reliable sources tend to support notability. Maybe she will be commonly remembered in the future (compare Ken Jennings) and maybe she won't, but it would seem to make more sense to leave the article for now, while she is still in the public eye, and then if she is largely forgotten in the future, submit the article for deletion then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Merge into the game article for now. If she develops independent notability, then this can be restored. This is an example where we really need more distance from the event to know how it should be considered in light of our policies. JRP (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and recreate as a redirect with the salient points merged into University Challenge 2009. There is no notability independent of the quiz programme; as others have said, this may change with time but we are dealing with now. Nancy talk 06:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, merge if need be. I'm in agreement with the nominator. "Cultural impact"? That utterly smacks of OR and hyperbole. I have serious doubts that in a week's time, she'll have anywhere near the same media interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 06:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- This girl is special - she deserves a Wiki page. It will expand further info about Uni Challenge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.142.207 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 09:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep WP:BLP1E is being misunderstood and misapplied. Her notability does not arise from having been arbitrarily involved in a notable event. Her position is that of an outstanding performer and her notability is directly due to her own talents and deeds. She is thus comparable to an Olympic gold medalist or other major contest winner. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)