| Revision as of 14:37, 19 April 2009 editRms125a@hotmail.com (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users266,337 edits →Clara Meadmore← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:38, 19 April 2009 edit undoRms125a@hotmail.com (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users266,337 edits →Clara MeadmoreNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| :::*Yep, that's basically the only reason that this article might be kept -- there's no lack of reliable sources or prominent news coverage. I don't think we want to open up the door for every fifteen-minute celebrity, though, and this woman doesn't seem to be of ] beyond a week or so of soft-news stories. After a good look at this coverage, I'm ready to vote '''delete'''. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC) | :::*Yep, that's basically the only reason that this article might be kept -- there's no lack of reliable sources or prominent news coverage. I don't think we want to open up the door for every fifteen-minute celebrity, though, and this woman doesn't seem to be of ] beyond a week or so of soft-news stories. After a good look at this coverage, I'm ready to vote '''delete'''. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' - ] a tabloid. Also this is sort of ]: the event being that the press has discovered a salacious fact (105year old virgin) and parrot each other for a few days (which of course leads to multiple publication, but not necessarily what one would call multiple reliable sources). If we think the fact is encyclopedic it can be included elsewhere (perhaps illustrating something about the history of sexual mores, or about media treatment of them), but there's no reason to have a ''bio'' article on someone known for a single piece of trivia. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - ] a tabloid. Also this is sort of ]: the event being that the press has discovered a salacious fact (105year old virgin) and parrot each other for a few days (which of course leads to multiple publication, but not necessarily what one would call multiple reliable sources). If we think the fact is encyclopedic it can be included elsewhere (perhaps illustrating something about the history of sexual mores, or about media treatment of them), but there's no reason to have a ''bio'' article on someone known for a single piece of trivia. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''For gosh sake, delete this thing already!!''' | |||
| ] (]) 14: |
*'''For gosh sake, delete this thing already!! and put me out my misery!''' Thanks, ] (]) 14:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC) (article creator) | ||
Revision as of 14:38, 19 April 2009
Clara Meadmore
- Clara Meadmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Todays news is tomorrows chip wrappers, and since she 1) hasn't done anything else notable, 2) there are many older people and 3) the sun seems to get its jollies from sensationalism (I half expect to see an article titled "HIV-positive muslim gay pedo benefit-stealing asyligrants who are out to touch your kids and insult Princess Di" one of these days) this brush with fame is likely to be fleeting and not worth an encyclopedia article. Ironholds (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. It could be said that this is someone notable for WP:NOEVENTS. Bongomatic 04:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like there are quite a few notable Google News hits on Meadmore -- the Sun obviously isn't the only source that covered this, and there are even many foreign-language results. Not that this alone makes her fit the criteria, just that the wide media attention makes her a better candidate for an article. Graymornings(talk) 04:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: I also believe in taking the long view of encyclopaedic notability, but there are 23,700 ghits for Meadmore and believe she probably qualifies. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (creator of article)
- I mean, let me add, just how many 103 year old virgins are there, anyway? Give me 60 years and I'll probably match the record, but... (Sir Isaac Newton was also reportedly a virgin at his death; maybe there is possible category here). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, and explain how articles about 103 year old virgins are of encyclopedic value? We're an encyclopedia, not a news site. To quote the relevant policy: "Misplaced Pages considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I mean, let me add, just how many 103 year old virgins are there, anyway? Give me 60 years and I'll probably match the record, but... (Sir Isaac Newton was also reportedly a virgin at his death; maybe there is possible category here). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep:it seems from here that being a British centenarian is in itself notable. ThatSignificant news coverage, perhaps it could be merged with an article such as "living British centenarians"? Not sure if such an article exists. TastyCakes (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)- Initial news coverage isn't something for notability (on its own, anyway); see WP:NOT#NEWS. There is a category for centenarians, yes, but simply being one isn't what makes them notable; they've done other things, be it writing books, acting as a judge, whatever. A good example: we have a category for people born in 1995. This does not mean that this category is evidence that Misplaced Pages believes being born in 1995 is a criteria for inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know, that's why I crossed off that first bit when I realised they weren't currently living centenarians but otherwise notable people that had lived to be over 100. Still think an article on currently living centenarians would be notable and that Meadmore would fit well in it. TastyCakes (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Such an article falls foul of the same issue; that individuals who are notable only for being over 100 and still alive are not notable. We have a List of centenarians; as you can see the only ones included (for good reason) are those who did other notable things with their lives. Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah you guys are right, Delete. TastyCakes (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Such an article falls foul of the same issue; that individuals who are notable only for being over 100 and still alive are not notable. We have a List of centenarians; as you can see the only ones included (for good reason) are those who did other notable things with their lives. Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know, that's why I crossed off that first bit when I realised they weren't currently living centenarians but otherwise notable people that had lived to be over 100. Still think an article on currently living centenarians would be notable and that Meadmore would fit well in it. TastyCakes (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete
Too many centenarians currentlySorry, couldn't resist that one. anyway, just being unusually old and decrepit does not make somebody notable. If she survives long enough to be the oldest woman on the planet, that would make her notable. As it is, she does not seem to have done anything extraordinarily notable other than continuing to survive. Firestorm 16:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC) - Delete. Neither being a virgin nor being over 100 years old makes one notable; combine the two and they still fail WP:NOT#NEWS (as already stated). Also, per WP:BIO, "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics." Just because they've written a bunch of articles about her doesn't establish notability. Fleetflame 16:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't a search engine statistic. As I understand that would be writing an article on X because googling X gives many hits. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- What's the difference between that and keeping an article just because of it? There has to be something else. Fleetflame 17:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- No one is claiming that the argument is that it turns up a lot of google web hits. The point is that we have many reliable sources which are what confer notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- What's the difference between that and keeping an article just because of it? There has to be something else. Fleetflame 17:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't a search engine statistic. As I understand that would be writing an article on X because googling X gives many hits. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, that's basically the only reason that this article might be kept -- there's no lack of reliable sources or prominent news coverage. I don't think we want to open up the door for every fifteen-minute celebrity, though, and this woman doesn't seem to be of lasting importance beyond a week or so of soft-news stories. After a good look at this coverage, I'm ready to vote delete. Graymornings(talk) 22:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:NOT a tabloid. Also this is sort of WP:BLP1E: the event being that the press has discovered a salacious fact (105year old virgin) and parrot each other for a few days (which of course leads to multiple publication, but not necessarily what one would call multiple reliable sources). If we think the fact is encyclopedic it can be included elsewhere (perhaps illustrating something about the history of sexual mores, or about media treatment of them), but there's no reason to have a bio article on someone known for a single piece of trivia. Rd232 13:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- For gosh sake, delete this thing already!! and put me out my misery! Thanks, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC) (article creator)