Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Barrett
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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tina Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Uncontaminated by reliable sources for quite a long time and apparently so far lacking notability per WP:BIO outside of S Club. Would suggest that if her solo career can't be reliably sourced this should be deleted and any relevant content merged back to S Club who are, it has to be said, as the dodo. Without prejudice to her own article if it ever happens for her. Rodhullandemu 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Because S Club 7 were aimed at kids, not everyone appreciates just how huge they were; I'd say easily at the level where each member warrants their own page. I agree Barrett's probably the least active of the original seven - on a quick skim, the only coverage of her in a major source post S Club was of a stalker being jailed - but IMO she still warrants her own article which should be fairly easily expanded. If noone else takes it on, I'll add her to my to-do list, but given the size of it probably won't get round to her for at least a couple of months. – iridescent 23:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks like plenty of sources exist.
- http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-79472832.html is behind a pay wall, but looks good "TINA BARRETT of S CLUB 7 lives in a rundown council flat in Hammersmith and is pretty short of cash. It's a bit of a surprise seeing as the band are doing..."
- http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-109236014.html Also behind a pay wall, but: "Now my spies tell me is all is not well between ex- S Club 7 bandmate Tina Barrett and her rich boyfriend Tommy Hulme. "They have been arguing a lot,"
- http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-82280117.html
- Hobit (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem with this is that it cites The People, a tabloid newspaper, which is not regarded as a reliable source, and is a paysite, failing verifiability policy. If proper reliable sources are found for the notability of this person, fine. --Rodhullandemu 00:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two problems: #1 I think tabloid newspapers are quite reasonable for this type of topic. #2 The question is if the topic is notable, not verifiable. I think the sources are enough for WP:N Hobit (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, I think here, particularly the last line of that paragraph, is where we should be looking. --Rodhullandemu 00:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where on earth are you getting "Tabloid newspapers are not a reliable source" from? We're talking about one of the biggest circulation newspapers in the UK, not the Weekly World News. – iridescent 00:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here. Circulation is irrelevant to the quality of the journalism. The Sun has a higher circulation than The People, and they reported "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster", on its front page, which was false. Please don't be fooled by popularity, that generally has little to do with reliability, and that's what we're seeking here. --Rodhullandemu 01:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm certainly not going to get into an argument about this so this will be my last post but that says nothing whatsoever about "tabloids are not a reliable source". On the contrary, it says "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed", and Trinity Mirror is certainly that. Yes, the Sun has printed inaccurate stories which they've later retracted, but so has every newspaper in the world. Are you seriously claiming the People story is not true? – iridescent 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From the cited policy: "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." Certainly the first two of Hobit's citations have WP:BLP concerns if they're not true. Any item that starts "Spies tell me..." is particularly dangerous for us to rely on. That's why we have these policies, and is why we haven't yet been successfully sued. And it isn't about truth, it's about verifiability. Not the same thing. --Rodhullandemu 01:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And that a news article said that is verifiable. I'm not saying that these news articles are the best sources for her article. They merely show notability. There are plenty of sources where she is not the primary subject of the source from which to build a good wiki article. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here. Circulation is irrelevant to the quality of the journalism. The Sun has a higher circulation than The People, and they reported "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster", on its front page, which was false. Please don't be fooled by popularity, that generally has little to do with reliability, and that's what we're seeking here. --Rodhullandemu 01:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where on earth are you getting "Tabloid newspapers are not a reliable source" from? We're talking about one of the biggest circulation newspapers in the UK, not the Weekly World News. – iridescent 00:51, 30 June 2008 (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.