Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Coladangelo

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. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Coladangelo

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Classic BLP1e, notable only for her affair with a politician. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as creator): This isn't true; she was criticised for being part of the "chumocracy" prior to her affair with Hancock: [1][2][3].

The scandal is notable, and imo merger of content would be undue for either her husband's article, or Matt Hancock's. Perhaps the page could be renamed/altered to reflect the scandal aspect (i.e. Matt Hancock affair or Matt Hancock scandal). People have already made comparisons to the Dominic Cummings scandal in terms of public trust in the UK govts pandemic messaging, and brushing this off as some simple gossip about a politician's affair is wholly inaccurate. The issue is the more to do with the hypocrisy than the infidelity, and that is reflected in the reliable sources given in the article. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of which can be dealt with in Hancock's bio. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Philafrenzy on this. She isn't particularly notable, only really for her affair with Hancock. Possibly some of the information from this article could be moved to the section on Matt Hancock's article about the scandal, if necessary. Typhlosionator (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable per Bangalamania. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I understand she was a very well paid professional aide, and it is inconceivable she would not be unaware of the possible consequences of the relationship leading to pressure or resignation of a key UK government figure during Covid 19 pandemic. The crucial point is it seems the failure to adhere to social distancing guidelines/rules. It is somewhat pragmatic as high access government aide in a work site if professional guidelines were followed. There may be scrutiny over appointments and possible cronyism and a bio has become reasonable in my view. She is not an A7 victim. Expansion on her husbands article page would be UNDUE and possible in breach of guidelines. Any expansion or merge on Hancock's page would likely be UNDUE. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per reliable sources about her and her role in government, dating back to 2020 (listed above), which predate the blowup of the story in June 2021 and subsequent ministerial resignation. Uhooep (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Not the case of WP:BLP1E as there are WP:RS on previous controversies, her appointment etc. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Had a lengthy notable career before the Hancock issue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel she is notable regardless of the recent event. HelpfulPi (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If kept, the article should be revised to reflect her notoriety for something other than the Hancock issue. With the recent 'issue', an additional footnote. Textualism (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just about enough notability before the Hancock scandal Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Bangalamania points out, in November three reliable sources gave coverage to her appointment to a £15,000-a-year advisor role in Hancock's department. Together will all the recent news, including coverage of her father and brother and their senior roles in companies with significant NHS contracts and/or connections (which we could not easily add elsewhere), this is enough to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily satisfies WP:GNG. IronManCap (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, likely search term arising from a breaking news story so deletion would not be a net improvement to the encyclopaedia. I don't like the solution of covering her in Matt Hancock's article -- Wikipedia should treat women as people in their own right and not appendages to articles about men.—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. This was exactly my feeling when I realised her article originally redirected to that of her husband. – Bangalamania (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, I made Coladangelo a redirect to Hancock, before realising that her husband Oliver Tress was notable, and started his article. Then I changed the redirect to Tress, as it seemed to make more sense to collect any content about her there. Edwardx (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't it cross your mind that rather than looking for a man's article to redirect this title to it might actually be possible to treat a woman as a separate person? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger Assuming good faith is a "fundamental principle". Our readers were going to be searching for Coladangelo, so creating a redirect to whatever might be the most relevant article makes sense while determining whether or not a separate article is yet merited. In the cirumstances, a redirect to Matt Hancock was appropriate. 46 hours later in the rapidly evolving news cycle, Bangalamania started the article, and as the article history indicates, other editors must have considered whether or not to begin one. Also, that there has been an AfD 55 hours after my initial redirect suggests that starting a separate article rather than that redirect may well not have been the right call. Edwardx (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Google suggested searches have 'gina coladangelo wikipedia' as the 4th suggestion when typing 'gina co'. People are clearly looking for this and will likely be surprised/disappointed if they can only find news stories about her as Wikipedia is far more trustworthy. Caraar12345 (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the consensus is pretty clear, I suggest to speedy keep this to avoid a deletion message on a highly visited Wikipedia page. - The9Man ^(Talk) 13:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreeing with S Marshall above, the inclusion of this article is an improvement of the encyclopedia but she passes GNG anyway. It is past time that women on Wikipedia be treated as individuals and not exist in the shadows of men, whether their spouse, fathers or siblings. --ARose Wolf 14:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Edwardx. More than just an affair - it was also the hiring for a government role. Please don’t close this before the 24-hour mark, though. starship .paint (exalt) 16:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP- Popular topic in the UK right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amillionways1211 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bangalamania and Edwardx. There is far more to her notability than just the recent news about the affair. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Drill it (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2021 (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.