Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sally Bercow

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 snow keep; there is absolutely no prospect of this article being deleted on the grounds of non-notability, and absolutely nothing to be gained by keeping this discussion open any longer. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Bercow[edit]

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

Not Notable, apart from "Married a Politician" Crisis.E X E 20:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although she has done some other things, including running for office, most of them have been non-notable gaffes. The article reads like a minor attack page, but even the "controversies" are not notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly notable, don't be silly. 188.221.165.193 (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - with her appearance on Cenebrity Big Brother she is now, by definition, a celebrity, albeit a very minor one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.21.87 (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable and about to be moreso. Johnnybriggs (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article proves she's notable by hyperlinking several of the reliable sources that have noted her: the Times, the Guardian, and the Mail. This is the exact definition of notability. But even if she wasn't very obviously notable, that still wouldn't lead to a "delete" outcome, because "Sally Bercow" would still need to be a redirect to the relevant subsection of the Speaker's article. There's an alternative to deletion so we would need to use that. See WP:BEFORE for the reasoning process editors are normally expected to go through before nominating something at AFD.—S Marshall T/C 23:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a person receives coverage doesn't in and of itself justify an article. For example, she received coverage for admitting to drinking and having one-night stands in her 20s. But that coverage was in relation to her failed campaign as a candidate and also derivative of her husband's notability. The coverage has to be relevant to her notability. I admit this is not an an easy call, and so far I seem to be in a minority, but, like the nom, I believe that everything stems from her marriage. That's not to say that spouses of famous figures can't also be notable in their own right, but I don't see it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After I showed how she meets our notability criteria, the second part of my post was where I explained that by long-established Wikipedian custom and practice, even if she wasn't notable in her own right, that still wouldn't lead to deletion, so this nomination would be inappropriate regardless. Do you see?—S Marshall T/C 07:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Clearly notable, is a current housemate in big brother celebrity edition and is married to the current speaker of the house of commons. This article should never have been nominated in my opinion. Its obvious she is notable. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Part of the reason she was nominated is exactly because she is the wife of the speaker. Should all participants on the brother show have wikipedia articles? I think the lead in the article says it all - in total: "Sally Bercow (née Illman; born 22 November 1969) is the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow." And the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article's highlights.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. Her primary claim to fame is being the Labour activist wife of an ex-Conservative speaker. Of that there is no doubt, and that alone would not be enough to warrant a stand alone article. However, while that is the reason she was taken notice of in the first place, in the last year she has received an increasing amount of coverage in her own right, to the extent that she probably met the GNG before entering Celebrity Big Brother. I'm uneasy admitting it, but going on CBB has in my mind removed any lingering doubt over whether she is notable enough. —WFC— 06:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The fact that her notability has emerged for reasons tied up in celebrity and tabloid gossip does not prevent it from being notability. Particularly, her appearances on Have I Got News for You and Celebrity Big Brother push her notability beyond that of 'spouse of John Bercow'. Even before Big Brother, however, she has received significant, reliable coverage from multiple sources, beyond run-of-the-mill news reporting: see here, here, here, and here. In many of these articles, she is the primary topic of the article, not her husband. Pretty Green (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2011 (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.