Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florence Colgate

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 delete. Arguments like "beauty is notable in itself" are unfortunately ungrounded in our policy and practice. Sandstein 04:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Colgate[edit]

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

Transient news event. No long term significance. No indication of notability beyond one-time report. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They added that bit to NOTNEWSPAPER less than a year ago. Not sure if there was any real discussion. The suggested guidelines keep changing so often, hard for anyone to keep track. Anyway, I believe her getting coverage not just in Britain but in America and elsewhere, is significant. I find it unlikely we won't be hearing about her modeling or whatnot in the future. I don't know if any world records are kept for the most symmetrical/perfect/beautiful face is, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't an entry for her somewhere for that. Dream Focus 20:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless she has notability now she doesn't belong on wikipedia. I didn't think we where in the habbit of reprinting press-releases about competitions that are pseudo advertisements. We'll be having articles about women with massive eyelashes based of TV adverts next. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 04:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I find it unlikely we won't be hearing about her modeling in the future". That's totally a CRYSTAL BALL statement p b p 00:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 20:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC),[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E seems to pretty plainly reject this admittedly not-at-all plain subject. I don't think there's much of an argument to be made that she's notable for more than this sole event. Recreate if she does indeed go on to have a noteworthy modeling career or similar. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do we create articles for every person who is in the international news? I agree that the article should be recreated once she is a model for an international ad campaign. I don't think being in the news qualifies one for an encyclopedic entry. She is pretty though. 199.38.162.15 (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete single-event fame for a nonnotable event. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having a completely scientifically mathematically perfect face and body is a rare and significant thing. Chrisrus (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing is mentioned about "body" anywhere in this, and our own sources don't actually say that she has a "mathematically perfect face." Her ratio is 44%, whereas perfect is defined by unnamed "scientists" as 46%. So, just so we're all clear:

There is no indication anywhere that this individual has the only/most "perfect" face in the world.
Her face is not mathematically perfect. It is merely almost perfect.

Those two considerations accounted for -- and they are directly lifted from the article's sourcing -- what we have here is someone who won a corporate-sponsored beauty contest. If you think she is notable because she has the most perfect face in the world, please read the sourcing again. If you think she is notable for having a mathematically perfect face, please read the sourcing again. If you think she is notable for winning a corporate-sponsored beauty pageant in the UK, please read WP:BLP1E. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're right. I opined without having actually read the article. This is, however, a legitimate topic for serious scholarship and if a "46%" could be mathematically proven and there is only one such person, please agree that'd get an article. Chrisrus (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there were universal scientific consensus around quantifiable measures for defining the perfect human face/appearance/whatever, and if only one (or a small handful) of persons had that appearance, yes, that'd clearly be notable :). Sorry to be a bit flip previously, I just wanted to make sure that everyone evaluating this realizes that what we've just described is not actually the case here! Thanks, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They actually show the measurements for a perfectly face were first determined by the Ancient Greeks, and then measure her to that standard. Please watch the news video. Dream Focus 23:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What, the video that literally says "almost perfectly symmetrical", and then says the perfect ratio is 1/3 whereas her face is 32.8% (ie almost perfect)? Erm. My point exactly? Hey, also, thanks for as usual assuming that I hadn't actually looked at the sources! I'll thank you for in the future looking more carefully at them. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is titled: Florence Colgate, 'Britain's Most Beautiful Face' Has Scientifically Perfect Looks. No one is going to say, "oh no, she isn't 1/3 but instead only 32.8%! That totally ruins it for me." Such a small amount no one notices. Dream Focus 15:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I assumed you read more than the title of the article. Perhaps you should. You should also watch the video you assumed I hadn't watched, and pay attention to the bit where it says "almost perfect." Our sources do not support saying that she is "mathematically" or "scientifically" "perfect". That's flat out incorrect. They support -- and, indeed, in the specific source you cited in your previous message, flat out say -- "almost perfect." Perfect is a binary condition. Something is or is not perfect. Almost perfect is not perfect. Words mean things. If she's "such a small amount" away from perfect that "no one notices," then she is not, in fact, perfect, and is merely the gorgeous winner of one corporate beauty contest. That's not, in and of itself, grounds for notability. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ginsengbomb. Sure, its highly possible she could now go on to a notable modeling career, but at the moment she is notable only for a single event. An article about her can be recreated if and when she does garner more attention, but at the moment its too soon. Rorshacma (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject received some limited, transient coverage only for a single event, a non-notable marketing ploy by cosmetic company, and has received no coverage since. The references to "science" and "mathematics" are merely marketing BS, of course, and are not to be taken seriously. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thus far, the person has only received coverage for winning an award based upon their appearance. The individual is currently only notable for one event, per the criteria at WP:BLP1E. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't delete this article myself, beauty is notable in itself as long as it is independently confirmed. Excalibur (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can you point to a Wikipedia BLP criteria that agrees with you? GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that the usual notability guidelines for people would apply, if that person got such widespread coverage for being beautiful. Consider the articles we have on people just for being old, being tall, etc. But the trick here is that the coverage is there - which may not be the case with Ms. Colgate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL p b p 23:52, 1 May 2012 (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.