Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Noland
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. First, I see nothing that says she requested deletion; only accuracy. That's a fair request. I'd be inclined to tend towards deletion if she requested it. Until then, notability appears to be satisfied.. - Philippe 19:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lucy Noland[edit]
- Lucy Noland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
BLP – apparently requested to have Wikipedia article on herself removed, and her notability is based merely on her doing her job. Bwrs (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Although this article is in Category:Biography articles of living people who have requested removal, the comment on the talk page only says that she requested that the article be factually correct. No opinion (yet) on notability. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was placed in that category by an administrator. Bwrs (nom.) (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This page has been subject to past edit storms that added lots of obsessive-fan type information. Understandably, Ms. Noland (according to an editor who spoke to her, see talk page) was less than thrilled. My question: is nuking the page just inviting someone to come along and create yet another stalky-fanboy version? (One wonders if semi-protection of some sort would be easier.) A2Kafir (and...?) 16:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only reason to delete this article would be if she wasn't sufficiently notable. The fact that she requested over a year ago to have it deleted is not relevant to this debate. We don't delete articles upon request. KnightLago (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that LPs in general are entitled to some privacy. If a subject is marginally or semi-notable, we should consider "that ethical decisions where good people disagree should be placed in the hands of the people who live with the consequences. No one could have more at stake in this request than these articles’ subjects. We ask notable people not to edit their own articles; we insist that they don’t own the content and we stand by other site policies. On a human level – setting any personal antipathies aside – it’s fair that we extend one courtesy in return: although Wikipedia is not paper, some living people who began their careers in the era of paper publishing...prefer to lead relatively private lives"; thus, "if the person isn't notable enough for an entry in any other encyclopedia--including specialty encyclopedias--then Wikipedia should extend a courtesy deletion upon receiving a request from the article's subject" (Durova, 2008). As far as I know, the subject of this particular article is notable only because she does her job. Now if she was a national news anchor, or if she were a public official of some sort, that would be different. Bwrs (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The test for inclusion remains whether or not they are notable. There are a lot of people who are notable just for doing their jobs. While I only see two sources in her article, the first one, the bio, makes her sounds pretty notable. Stints on CBS Radio Network, CNN, and anchoring a morning show in Detroit are noteworthy. KnightLago (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that LPs in general are entitled to some privacy. If a subject is marginally or semi-notable, we should consider "that ethical decisions where good people disagree should be placed in the hands of the people who live with the consequences. No one could have more at stake in this request than these articles’ subjects. We ask notable people not to edit their own articles; we insist that they don’t own the content and we stand by other site policies. On a human level – setting any personal antipathies aside – it’s fair that we extend one courtesy in return: although Wikipedia is not paper, some living people who began their careers in the era of paper publishing...prefer to lead relatively private lives"; thus, "if the person isn't notable enough for an entry in any other encyclopedia--including specialty encyclopedias--then Wikipedia should extend a courtesy deletion upon receiving a request from the article's subject" (Durova, 2008). As far as I know, the subject of this particular article is notable only because she does her job. Now if she was a national news anchor, or if she were a public official of some sort, that would be different. Bwrs (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to meet minimal notability requirements. She seems to only have requested accuracy, not deletion. Furthermore, how do we know it is her requesting the deletion? — BQZip01 — talk 05:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]