Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Trimble

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. The general consensus here seems to be against deleting the article. There are a good number of people calling for a redirect or a merge as well; this does not need to be decided at AfD, but can be discussed on the article's talk page. I'd also strongly recommend continual monitoring of this article to ensure it remains neutral and well-referenced according to BLP guidelines. For those who are in favor of this article being deleted, I'd suggest waiting a few months to see if the media coverage does die down, which (as Iridescent implied in the nomination) would lend a bit more credence to the WP:BLP1E arguement. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Trimble

[edit]


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong delete per well-detailed above argument. WP:BLP1E, specifically. Adam Zel (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Who knows? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline you linked to - 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball' - is exactly why we shouldn't have this article. Ms. Trimble is not notable yet. She may become so in the future, but that's a judgement to be made with the benefit of hindsight and historical perspective; and we can't keep this article on the presumption that she might become notable, as that's what WP:CRYSTAL is meant to prevent. If you're not certain that she'll still be a recognised name next week, then we shouldn't have this article. Robofish (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One week down - still newsworthy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Changing my vote to just a straight keep. I see no reason, with the mass of coverage she's getting, that deletion should occur. She's just too notable, outside of the show, to be deleted. I think the comparison to Ken Jennings is apt. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Even better. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think the announcement of Gail Trimble's engagement (now mentioned in the article) is a good indication of why we shouldn't be using a biography to cover her University Challenge performance. The engagement made the Times because she's still enjoying her fortnight of fame, but we've no reason to believe that her activities will receive similar publicity in future, and any current information about her personal life or academic plans could be very misleading a few years from now if we lack the ability to update it. If this discussion ends with "Keep" or "No consensus", I think we should at least treat the title "Gail Trimble" as shorthand for "Performance of Gail Trimble in University Challenge 2009", and avoid extraneous information. EALacey (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. has received much attention in lots of different media. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
— Anna Rundell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 08:19, 1 March 2009
And even if that were true, which it is not, how would that affect the validity of the argument? Anna Rundell (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is customary practise to place the {{spa}} tag against new accounts in these discussions, owing to natural concern about ballot stuffing. You explained elsewhere that you are a veteran editor using a new account to conceal your real identity. That seems fair enough but you might as well get this out in the open as others may be suspicious. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The show's not the event here, the one event would be the current season. Cool3 (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as you have to know things to be successful, rather than getting loads of money plowed into a sport that no-one really cares about. Keep the article, no different as per an Olympic athelete who competes at one games and wins one medal, or, of course, the number of non-notable nobodies who've been in reality shows who have their own articles. Lugnuts (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For everyone citing some version of, she is only notable for one event, the press coverage of her is continuing. One event is more about a flurry of press coverage on one or two days after something happens, but if anything the coverage of her is expanding, and it certainly asserts notability. The Guardian called her "a media sensation" this morning [3]. The Times ran a piece on her today [4]. A writer in the Telegraph remarked "I'm sure everyone is by now familiar with Corpus Christi College and their all-conquering captain Gail Trimble" [5]. Certainly this in an indication of notability, and the fact that the coverage didn't stop when the show stopped is an indication that she's bigger than just one event, becoming in fact, something of a cultural phenomenon. Cool3 (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool3 hit the nail on the head. I don't see a difference between her article and this article on the main page, which is essentially "one event". Lugnuts (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that this article is a BLP, and so is rightly held to higher inclusion standards than articles on other subjects. (That one in particular is a terrible example, as it's a widely-reported air disaster in which 9 people died and hundreds were injured - obviously rather more significant than a contestant who won a game show, I would have thought.) Robofish (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nope. It is much too soon to declare her a person of note who has accomplishments that warrant a permanent entry in an encyclopedia. Today we know that she is someone that is attracting the attention of the media for her current activities. People that want to read about her can look at newspaper, magazine articles, or websites. Newspapers and magazines are the appropriate place for people to find information about her because of her current notoriety. Sometime down the road, she may have the accomplishments that are typically needed for an encyclopedia entry. Until that time, information about her is best placed in an article about University Challenge. Worst case scenario, lowering our standards to include an entry on her has the potential of causing problems for her in real life. There is a significant risk that the article will be a place for false information to be provided to the reader. The most likely scenario is that the article will grow stale with information that does not reflect her ongoing life accomplishments because they will never be cover in the media after her 15 minutes of fame passes. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's also starting to appear in mentions, merely as a celebrity in articles about other things, showing that her celebrity is more pervasive. For example, see [6], an article in the Times that begins "In a week dedicated to celebrating the nimble-witted Gail Trimble" and then continues about other topics. When other sources make passing reference to a person, expecting everyone to know who it is, that's a pretty excellent indication of notability. Cool3 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this still relates to her appearance on the television show. Loads of chatter about it, yes. Because it was a popular show, it is getting more media coverage than usual. But that does not change the fact that she is known for this single event. The reason that we should put material about her in University Challenge rather than a separate entry is not changed my many different media outlets repeating the same information. The encyclopedic quality information about her is still extremely thin and can be covered in a short paragraph. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on two formal objections to a faulty application of BLP1E argument. (A) The person was involved not in a single event, but, rather, in a quite a long string of events. She appeared in public no less than a lead actor of a miniseries, and probably brought the tv barons far more cash. (B) BLP1E specifically says 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. Even if Trimble dislikes her publicity, she's not a low-profile individual anymore. NVO (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question if you don't mind answering (or someone else can, maybe), why do you think that a separate article is the best place to offer information to the reader about her? If her name is a redirect to University Challenge then the reader can find information about her there. Encyclopedic quality information about her is very thin and can best be presented in a single short paragraph. It is not a matter of a stub waiting for someone to do more research and expand the entry, rather with her short article we will be waiting for her to do something else notable so more content can be added. Can you see the difference between the two scenarios and why that in one case a short article is fine but in the other it is the recipe for trouble? FloNight♥♥♥ 17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage has gone way beyond her performance in University Challenge. She is now a celebrity, role model and hate figure. Much of the coverage now focusses upon the extent to which her excellence is condemned while the crude ignorance of reality TV stars is excused, so exemplifying the dumbing down of modern culture. You might think that Wikipedia would have a special place for lovers of knowledge but we have this attack here too. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The media coverage is still limited in scope because it is covering a person known for a single event. The larger number of different media outlets covering her does not change the fact that there is a narrow range of content that can be added about her. While it expands the choice of references, the expanded number of media outlets covering her does not increase our ability to write a comprehensive article about her. Our inability to write an article that adequately portrays her life is the reason that WP:BLP1E exists. In these instances, a separate article is not needed to display the available content. And having an article based on the limited information does not capture the full essence of who the person really is so can be harmful to the person. The WP:BLP was written to recognize that special care needs to be taken to make sure we are displaying content about living people in a way that accurately reflects the person. If a person known for a single event, it is next to impossible to provide broad enough material to do justice to the topic. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is already comprehensive, giving a well-sourced account of her education, her interests, her achievements, her performance in University Challenge and the intense recent interest in her. Now compare this with the hundreds of articles in the Category:Swimmers at the 2008 Summer Olympics such as Julia Beckett. Singling out a highly notable person to be humiliated by deleting her article while leaving thousands of stubby articles about numerous minor sportsmen and women is not justice. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While your argument is called WP:VAGUEWAVE. If you read WP:OSE, you will find that it explains that "When used properly, a logical rationalization of 'Other Stuff Exists' may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain.". I am using this properly by showing that Wikipedia systematically maintains stubby articles on outstanding performers or even indifferent performers - those who simply qualified for a notable event. We have many thousands of such articles and these clearly establish a relevant precedent per WP:OSE: "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you somehow forgot to quote you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist from the same place. Anyway, since you're shifting your ground from "justice" to an alleged previously existing consensus, you also failed to note that when you describe performers who "qualified for a notable event", that event was the Olympics, for which there is a specific consensus at WP:ATH. Your argument that there is a consensus would only work if you maintain that University Challenge is covered by "the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships". It doesn't say "notable". And UC clearly isn't either of those two things. Now let's just drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Anna Rundell (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • She captained the winning team in the final with a performance better than any in the competition's 50 odd years. There is no higher level in this sport. We can also consider the guidance of WP:ENTERTAINER which covers television personalities who have a "significant cult following" and make a "unique...contribution". She qualifies on multiple counts as well as the abundant evidence of numerous independent sources per WP:N. The idea that sundry obscure synchronised swimmers, rope-climbers and horse-riders are more worthy of coverage here is absurd so trying to apply this as a rigid rule fails WP:BURO. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flonight: "why do you think that a separate article is the best place to offer information to the reader about her" - why not, may I wonder in return? Information on a person is normally accessed through an article on this person... unless there's really not much to say apart from their mention in a single event per BLP1E. Thus wikipedia presents information on Daniel Radcliffe in his own bio and not in Harry Potter (film series). It's just good sense: if a section on a person outgrows the mother event/series (in case of Trimble it did), there's no point keeping it there - it will reduce University Challenge to a coatrack for Trimble. NVO (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - textbook WP:BLP1E - Alison ❤ 18:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was going to vote delete first, but several foreign news sources write about her. Their readers probably do not even watch University Challenge, so she is independently notable. Note also that this debate was linked from Wikipedia review, whose readers are rather pro-deletion on BLP articles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia Review. Mike R (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - if it's one event, just rename to relate to the event. That's what happens to coatracks. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - blatant WP:BLP1E. I can understand the desire to have an article on someone like Trimble while she was briefly in the news, but it's abundantly clear already that she has no lasting notability - we're talking about someone here who was 'famous' for a week at most. Thanks to iridescent for nominating the article; as I noted on the talk page, I was thinking of doing so myself, but didn't want to face controversy by doing it now. I'm glad someone was willing to do what needed to be done and take responsibility for it. Robofish (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference would be for either Redirect or Rename to event, but I'd take Keep over Delete, if those were my only two choices. 7triton7 (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I think her notability is more than just a quiz show winner as she has sparked a debate of the distrust many Britons have of intellectual achievement, especially in a women. I think this will run for a while and I particularly value a WP article that summarizes what is publicly known about her with sources cited, rather than media rumour. As per previous comments, there are many less notable eg sports winners with bio stubs. Billlion (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per 1 event, flo, nom, etc. Verbal chat 13:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parody. Gail Trimble is a phenomenon of semi-popular culture. Anything worthy of passing notice as an item of not-yet-popular culture is worthy of Wikipedia. —Moulton 13:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well today we now have the startling revelation that one of her teammates was apparently NOT a student (shock! horror!) [7] and that an investigation is under way [8] (no article on him please). The upshot of this being that I can see the sense in having an article on the current series which should reference both these events (Trimble and what will no doubt become known as "Studentgate") and as I stated somewhere above, Gail Trimble should be redirected there. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you mean: no article on Sam Kay please ?. . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent of Ken Jennings, Frank Spangenberg, Eddie Timanus, Brad Rutter, etc. Yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason, but we seem to have an informal standard for gameshow biographies akin to WP:ATHLETE; perhaps we should create WP:GAMESHOW. Besides, she meets WP:BIO by virtue of substantial independent press coverage. If TheRetroGuy is right, and this turns into a scandal, we can address that issue then. THF (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There would seem to be enough sources and information, including a brief biography, to make covering it all in the Challenge 2009 article unwieldy. There's more prose in this article than there is in University Challenge 2009. Much of the coverage regarding misogyny has gone beyond the specifics of the competition. Also, she passes WP:N and therefore merits her own article. bridies (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another one event famous for sive minutes person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news service. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename Seems one-eventy at first glance, but the media response to her seems notable, even if she herself isn't. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets notability standards as a TV performer. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or keep There are at least two articles into which this material could be merged: University Challenge 2009 and Celebrity culture (itself in a fairly dire state, it has to be said). If not merged, then I would keep it. I know we all have some reluctance (and some WP policy) that discourages 'five minutes of fame' from cluttering up the servers, but we also would like this to be the place that, when people want to ask "who was...?", no matter how obscure the person is or was, they might find a reliable answer. Personally I make it my mission to create and improve biographies of obscure but notable people :-) However, considering WP's "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", then, notwithstanding attempts to turn Trimble into a representation of debate about contemporary British culture, I would have thought she really remains at this point tied to just the one event - the winning of the 2009 Challenge. All commentary remains contingent on that. As others have said, the time may come when she warrants her own entry, and that will be fine. Despite all that, I would not support a delete, only redirect / merge. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Good grief... she was part of a team, yet other team members are not notable? All the media attention is about peoples perceptions of this person and the abuse given due to being labelled a "swot" etc. How on earth does that make her notable for more than one event? Newspaper articles aren't about her; they are about peoples reactions towards her... the only way press attention will keep on will be the fact there's currently an investigation into the eligibility of one of the team members; the hand wringing articles will soon stop. Some people really need hitting with a cluestick. Minkythecat (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Neutral' Apparently violates BLP1E as that guideline is written. A merge to University Challenge 2009 would be in order. However, I can think of an awful lot of other articles that could be deleted under BLP1E, which suggests that the guideline is flawed. Every reality show contestant, for starters. Ken Jennings would have failed under current standards at the time of his Jeopardy victories (although he doesn't violate BLP1E anymore, with book deals and the like). Joe the Plumber almost got deleted as a BLP1E. Charles van Doren might have violated BLP1E if Wikipedia had existed during the quiz show scandals of the 1950's. And so on. Admittedly Gail Trimble isn't as notable as these people. Wkdewey (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    • Merge to University Challenge 2009. I misread the guidelines, there is a qualification that it applies to "low-profile" people (which Trimble is, and those other people are not). That's a better standard than only considering whether the person is only notable for one event. Wkdewey (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC) just can't make up my mind here, no vote. Wkdewey (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to all the above "!votes" - Trimble's team have been disqualified from the competition and Manchester are now the winners. I don't think this affects the notability as such, but the guys above may want to reconsider their votes. D.M.N. (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... as one of those who !voted 'Delete' above, I think this clearly does affect the notability issue (after all, a Univesity Challenge winning team being stripped of their title is a rare and notable event). However, I'm still not convinced of the need for an article on Trimble herself, due to the BLP1E issues. Perhaps the best solution would be to have an article on 'Corpus Christi college University Challenge team 2009', rather than any individual team member in particular. Robofish (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Keep above now reinforced by the latest news. Trimble's tragic status as the quiz queen who never was will surely ensure her immortality. Being disqualified after winning is much more notable than merely winning, which happens every year. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that this is a person notable for one event, and only as part of a larger team. This article should definately be removed but i see no harm in some of the information being incorperated into the University Challenge 2008 article. TSMonk (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to voters and to people who actually bother discussing. Perhaps you should consider Trimble's notability in relation to that of Ray Joseph Cormier, which is also up for deletion on similar grounds. If Trimble isn't sufficiently notable then Cormier, who seems to have less reason for an article, is probably not either; conversely, if Cormier is notable enough for an article, then it seems that Trimble must be too. Clinkophonist (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'm counting at least 4 events for which Trimble has been covered:
  1. Trimlbe wins University Challenge
  2. Trimble becomes a "media sensation" and sparks debate
  3. Trimble gets engaged (not as big, but made the papers)
  4. Trimble's team is disqualified
Now, if someone has been involved in four events, how can criteria for people involved in one event apply?

I have a suggestion that might sound like a compromise here. Instead of having a separate article on Gail Trimble, why not, in addition to the article on University Challenge, have a separate article entitled something like "Notable Events from the History of University Challenge" or "Notable Contestants from University Challenge"? The BBC 2 series "University Challenge is quite a popular programme, and arguably, deserves more than one article (other popular television programmes often get more than one article in Wikipedia). If we began this article, we could include the story of Gail Trimble and, more generally, the story of what happened to Corpus Christi. If you have followed the news on Radio Four since 1 March, you will know that Price Waterhouse confirmed that Sam Kay was not actually a student at the time of the final; it was announced on the Radio Four news tonight (March 2 2009) that Corpus Christi had been stripped of their title as 2009 winners. A sad story I know, but given I cannot remember a team being stripped of their title before, perhaps this could be reported in such an article. On a more positive note for Corpus Christi College, the same article could also report Gail Trimble's remarkable polymathy, and note that she has been described as "The Human Google". There are probably many other episodes of "University Challenge" which - subject, I know, to discussion, could go here. So, my suggestion is that rather than to delete the article on Gail Trimble altogether, we create the new article which I suggested earlier and put the information on Gail Trimble in there. This is only my humble suggestion - sorry if I sound as if I am sitting on the fence there, but then as some once said, from up there one gets a good view! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As one of many coming to Wikipedia to find more infomation about Trimble, I agree with the above poster that there is currently a real demand for such infomation, considering her current notability. Also, although it's just my opinion, I'd feel that this is more than just a nine-day wonder, but will become a part of pop culture in the future and should thus be documented. 129.67.159.0 (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)helle[reply]
  • Comment. For anyone who doesn't look at the direction the extensive news coverage is going, the story has now shifted into the international press. Whereas before most of the coverage was British, I've noticed a lot of international press now, including: The International Herald Tribune [10], which though it's about the team's disqualification only mentions Trimble by name. The story also spread to Reuters India [11], which again focussed its coverage on Trimble. A profile in Christian Today [12], Agence France-Presse [13], and finally over in Ireland, the Belfast Telegraph wrote today "Having committed one of pop's cardinal sins by being perceived as too clever, Franz Ferdinand are in danger of becoming the Gail Trimble of the music business," [14], showing that Trimble no longer even needs an introduction. Cool3 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Also covered on ABC radio. Mark Hurd (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I am an American who has never visited the UK and live in Colorado. Yet, Gail Trimble is now known by people here, who had never before heard of either University Challenge or Corpus Christi college. As stated above, I only found out about her due to the continuing International coverage of the event and the title stripping fallout, but she is more than famous enough for a Wikipedia entry. I would argue that her case is very similar to Ken Jennings and even more recently Chesley Sullenberger and no one is calling for them to be deleted. Although even a few days ago she may have been a decent candidate for deletion, her fame has exponentially expanded and now is fully deserving of a wiki in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.142.227 (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this has now moved well past the BLP1E concerns, is well referenced from diverse sources, and appears to clear the verifiability and notability thresholds. Some commenters above wonder if she'll be famous in the future—which is irrelevant as the standard is not fame (which is fleeting) but notability which is not temporary. - Dravecky (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I personally am not sure, but this can be reviewed at a later date. To put this up for deletion now is to be rash in the same manner that you're accusing the page creators of being. We need editorial standards but there's no harm (it seems well written) in leaving this up for a bit longer. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The media and public reaction to Trimble captaining the winning team has had far wider impact than the result itself, and it seems unlikely that this is the last we will hear or her. It would be foolish to lose the present content through pedantry, only to have to reconstruct it later. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gail_Trimble&oldid=1188605379"