Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Gobbo

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. causa sui (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nicola Gobbo

Nicola Gobbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

While Ms Gobbo has received significant media coverage over the last year or so (much of it tabloid or semi-tabloid), it's been almost exclusively in regard to her agreeing to give evidence against organised crime and alleged problems with the protection she received after having done so. As such, this article fails WP:BLP1E. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 6. Snotbot  t • c »  20:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep -- This nominatrion asserts Nicola Gobbo is a blp1e. I find this a troubling assertion. I did a google search on Nicola Gobbo, which substantiates she is, in fact, a prominent lawyer, receiving press coverage for her role in a decade of high profile cases. Further, she was sufficiently prominent that The Age sought her opinion on a completely unrelated topic.

  Even if, for the sake of argument, she was not someone recognizable enough that she would be sought for her opinion on non-legal topics, even if her only prominent case was the Paul Dale case, her role in that case dates back to 2003. BLP has been a policy since 2007. As time has gone on some contributors have pushed to have it interpreted in a more and more extreme fashion. I suggest that the "one event" clause was meant to apply to genuine passing associations with a prominent event -- not playing a central role that results in almost a decade of press coverage.

  Finally, the nomination claims almost all the coverage was "tabloid, or semi-tabloid". I challenge this assertion. The "Australian Broadcasting Corporation" is not a tabloid. I have only read The Age online. If it is an unreliable tabloid I must have missed all the clues, as I have referenced its articles hundreds of times. And so called tabloids run the same wire service stories as high-brow papers. When they do their coverage is just as reliable as that of high-brow papers. Geo Swan (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment In the nominator's defence the article's description of Gobbo did not accurately reflect her role. I fixed the existing references, added a new reference. The article needs some additional work, and I have added the {{rescue}} tag. The article currently assert she recently rose to prominence. I think her rise to prominence is of long-standing. Further her role is considerably more complex than described in the article -- in ways that require an effort to comply with NPOV and SYNTH to cover properly. Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep -- Was one of the best-known barristers, now front-page news over her drug convictions, co-operation with Police, close connections with crime etc. Article needs a lot of work.--Brandonfarris (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Subject likely scrapes over the notability threshold but the article as originally written reeked of POV-pushing. At the very least there appeared to be an agenda behind the article creation. Use of the term "taxpayer funds" never suggests a balanced article to me, not to mention the insinuations of criminal activity. Roberta Williams is NOT a reliable source for any claim. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Has gotten coverage for more than just one thing. Dream Focus 21:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't think her history really qualifies as a 'single event', more like 'recurring character'. Granted some of the media coverage is problematic - I'm aware of the issues relating to the Hun's coverage of things & people related to Carl Williams, and indeed its coverage of Vic policing generally, and that is a reason to be cautious in editing the article, but it's not an argument for deletion. --GenericBob (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment -- User:121.210.234.34 gave this article an informationectomy and removal of all references. That informationectomy was repeated a day later. Geo Swan (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I added back in some of the material and references removed in the informationectomies and referencectomies. Out of respect for the unexplained BLP concerns my restoration is modest. Geo Swan (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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.