Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loreen Hall

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) talk to !dave 21:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loreen Hall[edit]

Loreen Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Request by the article subject at ticket:2018040210005718.

She writes:

After Much Thought I would now like to:

  • Close this discussion
  • Cancel my delete article request
  • And Work on expanding the article, with information that can be sourced.
  • Can anyone advise me on how to carry out the first two bullet points?Berture77 (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk to !dave 20:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Dave, is it confirmed that the requester actually is Loreen Hall? The same request has been made here on Wikipedia, and there is discussion about it as Adam linked above, but we have had no confirmation of the identity of the user making the request. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ack, that's a good question. Joe jobbers unfortunately do exist, but I won't be able to fulfil that request on the OTRS side right now because I am off to bed. I do apologise. (Britishness confirmed there -- apologising for needing to go to sleep?) I'll sort it out tomorrow. talk to !dave 20:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question FIND AN ACCURATE ACCOUNT of my British Athletic career HERE I assume "HERE" is the BBC interview? Adam9007 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would assume this was the link she gave. I'm not going to comment further here until after the other discussion gets a little further along. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, on that self-hosted link she specifically describes herself as a public figure, directly contradicting the statement above. This raises questions about the veracity of the request. The subject also runs what appears to be quite a successful business in NaturalNotts so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of this request actually coming from someone (e.g. business rival) looking to denigrate the subject's online presence. SFB 00:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: I received an email from the account -- it has a different email address to the one that is sending us emails on OTRS. Rather suspect, not?? talk to !dave 07:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After some consideration, that is not as suspect as it seems. talk to !dave 15:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dave: I agree it is not necessarily suspicious - it's not unusual for a person to give one email address for their Wikipedia account and use another one for their general, personal email. But the question is, is there evidence that the emails received at OTRS came from the real Loreen Hall? To me that makes all the difference in how seriously to take this request. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Participation does not confer automatic notability. Reywas92Talk 22:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hall passes the notability guidelines. This request is not particularly convincing. Improper use of all caps? Check. Over-the-top claim that the article is full of lies? Check. False claim that a reliable website (Sports-Reference.com) is not reliable? Check. Ploy for sympathy with sad story about health and stress? Check. Maybe I'm wrong and this request really is from Loreen Hall, but in that case she's going to have to do better if she wants to convince us. Lepricavark (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm struggling to find anything in the biography that could be construed as defamatory, intrusive or insulting to the subject, but there is absolutely nothing of that sort there. It's just a bare, factual account of her performances at athletics tournaments. Personally, I would take pride if I had achieved any one of the feats mentioned. The sources used are among the most reputable you could find – GBR Athletics, owned by Athletics Weekly (the foremost British publication on the sport), and Power of 10, which is the official statistical provider for British athletics. I would strongly oppose deletion on privacy grounds – Hall is a public figure as an Olympian and, by the above admission, recently spoke to the BBC to give an overview of her career. I see no reason to change our coverage here. SFB 00:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from competing at the Olympics, there is other coverage of her, that has been added to the article, and correctly sourced. There's nothing (that I can see) that is untrue, or would warrant removal from a BLP point of view. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NOLY; an individual is deemed notable for inclusion (rightly or wrongly) if they participated in a late nineteenth-century Summer Olympics, let alone one from "only" thirty years ago. No particular opinion on the veracity or otherwise of the takedown request; but note that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is pretty specifically confined to poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, only. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 09:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as has been said, she clearly passes notability guidelines as per WP:NOLY. As Serial number points out, the deletion request does not appear to meet WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. And as Lugnuts and Sillyfolkboy correctly point out, the article does not appear salacious, but is simply a factual recitation of her career. Onel5969 TT me 14:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't help but sympathize when someone who asks for BLPREQUESTDELETE, and though I don't see anything defamatory or libelous in the article I can understand privacy concerns, but per WP:NOLYMPICS there's no way the subject is not notable for Wikipedia. Sro23 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If a subject identified through the OTRS demonstrates information written about them being false we have nothing to justify keeping it. Taking that information out of the equation, we don't have enough remaining to claim sufficient notability.Tvx1 22:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: This is not an accurate description of the situation. The information in the article is not only neutral and verifiable by reputable sources, but it is also supported by the interview provided by the subject. It remains entirely unclear what exact facts the subject disputes, and the sourcing for all the information in the article comes from major publications and statisticians for the sport. SFB 22:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the person sending the emails - and editing here - has not yet been confirmed to be the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the comments below. There is no justification to be ignorant and to keep a BLP violation.Tvx1 21:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the person who expanded the article, I take issue with the claim that I'm "clearly trying to discredit (her) achievements in British athletics", which is most certainly not the case. The BBC interview mentions an event I was previously unaware of, the Australia Games. If she feels discredited because an event like that is not listed, the only reason for its absence is that although the 1985 Australia Games (which was a one-off multi-sport event) does have a wikipedia article, it has no links to any track results. The closest I've found is an Australian pdf which gives the Australian athletes results (e.g. Nicole Boegman 4th in the 100m), but no info on who won the 100/200/400m. My reasons for expanding the article (as with all athletes pages that I've expanded) is to accurately enhance, not diminish the person's achievements. As pointed out by Sillyfolkboy, you won't get many more reputable sources than GBR Athletics (Athletics Weekly) or Power of 10 (UK Athletics). Some of the info is even backed up by the BBC radio interview, including the info about being British number one in 1987 (52.74), doing the Olympic qualifying time in 1988 (52.71) and her career coming to an end at 20/21, which is the reason the article info does not go beyond 1988. If it is Ms Hall, then it would be helpful to know what facts are in fact disputed. L1975p (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. These are the reasons I applied for the deletion of this article and would still like it deleted:
  • The article is not a true account of my British Athletic career in that there is too much important data missing, which renders it not accurate as a whole. The missing data is.....> all the gold medals I won throughout my Team GB career, which @L1975p ended 1992.
  • . On reading the article, before it was changed and even as it stands now, one would not know I won manly gold medals, 2 silvers and 1 bronze.
  • I'm a 3x Gold Medalist - 1985 Australian Games, 100m, 200m, 400m.
  • I'm a Gold medalist of The Cosford Indoor Championships, 16th March, 1985 400m (during which I broke the indoor 400m track record twice, once during the heats, then broke my own record in the final.)
  • I'm a Gold Medalist of the Women's Team GB Women's 4 x 400m Relay Norway 1987
  • I'm a Silver Medalist of the Women's Team GB 4 x 400m relay at the Gateshead European Games, during which I ran against Flo Jo
  • I'm a Gold Medalist of the Cyprus Games, 1992 100m
  • NOTABILITY: Me competing in the games does not make a chronologically incorrect profile on me OK to be kept on Wiki, so much data is missing and there are no new sources that can be added to substantiate what I have outlined above, by way of achievements. @MelanieN said you cannot use the link for my BBC interview because it was uploaded on my Soundcloud account. So there are no other sources that can be used to improve and correctly support the gold and silver medals I won. The article therefore, is incorrect and will remain incorrect if kept. Berture77 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only bronze medal I won was in the 4 x 400m relay at the European cup. The article you wrote @L1975p leads with that bronze medal and gives the impression it's the most major medal I've won?? Where is the mention of all my gold medals?? I'm a Gold Medalist several times over, but the article you wrote does not portray this. Thus, rendering it aninaccurate account of my British Athletic Career. My BBC interview is a legitimate interview with facts that they researched before having me in their studio.

  • The timeline has too many gaps, which as a whole portrays me as a mediocre athlete who just about made it to the Olympics, which is not true @L1975p. I won the Midlands championships, before the Olympic Trials (oh yeah, there's another gold Medal) and had previously achieved the Olympic qualifying time, 52.71, before I won Silver at the Olympic trials. THIS is what earned me automatic selection for the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games. I earned that spot, thank you very much. (Before and during the Olympics I had a torn hamstring. Anyone that was following British Athletics at that time would know this an The Olympic Board do not select any and anyone.... they took their chances on me because of my track record... they had faith in me to heal from my injury, during the acclimatization period in Japan, before we flew onto Seoul. I competed at the Olympics injured).Berture77 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Berture77: That certainly reinforces your notability, Wikipedia-wise  :) did you send the original email to OTRS? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 14:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I need to respond but anyway...
  • Hall did not finish second at the Olympic trials in 1988. 1st was Linda Keough (51.65) automatic selection, 2nd was Pat Beckford (52.49) automatic selection and third was Janet Smith (52.89) who earned relay selection. Hall earned (notice here and at the article I use the word earned) the third discretionary place thanks to her 52.71 at the midland champs in June '88 (mentioned on the page). If Hall had been top two at the trials (which she wasn't) the Olympic board wouldn't have the option to "(take) their chance on me", as she would have got automatic selection. They "took their chances", because she didn't make the top two at the trials but had ran the standard in June. Hall talks about this in the BBC radio interview.
  • The article says Hall won a European Junior Championships bronze (not European Cup). The Euro Juniors is a Major Championships, and a medal there is more notable than winning lesser events such as the midland champs, national junior champs or other less notable international events. "Gold medallist several times over", yes, but not at events as notable as the European Junior Championships.
  • The timeline doesn't have gaps. It says Hall ran (an impressive) 53.08 at 16 (1984) won a major champs medal at 17 (1985), finished second at the 1987 AAA champs (not in Olympic year), was British number one at 19 (1987) and went to the Olympics at 20 (1988). On the BBC Nottingham radio interview, Hall talks about her track career ending when she was 21 (1989). Where's the gaps?
  • I removed the "failed to reach the final" after a comment by MelanieN, but it was in reference to the '88 Olympic trials/AAA, where Keough & Beckford got automatic selection and Hall was not in the final, due I imagine, to her struggling with the stress fracture that she talks about on the BBC radio interview. The top three at the 1987 AAAs (with Hall) and the 1988 AAA/Olympics trials (without Hall) are both referenced on the article. L1975p (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loreen's response to L1795p last comments Berture77 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC) @L1795p[reply]
  • You mention me winning a Bronze Medal at the European Juniors, but fail to mention I won a Silver Medal at the Women's AAA, despite listing that event in your article. So how then, does it not read Loreen won Silver Medal at the 1987 AAA Championships?? It's a silver medal that you're describing in the article as 2nd place.
  • Another part of the article reads: At the Seoul Olympics, she ran 53.13 in her heat to qualify for the quarterfinals, where she was eliminated once again reporting my athletic career from a negative angle. Why didn't you write: At the Seoul Olympics she achieved Quarter Finalist status, with a time of... This is my life and my reputation you're playing around with. That's two Gold medals you've failed to mention, despite mentioning the events in the article. If you're gonna say an athlete won a race... say what they won.
  • In this discussion, you're contradicting yourself, you're saying the gold and silver medals I won for Team GB, are not notable enough to be included, but you actually mention one of my least notable races in your article: Hall ran 53.08 secs for 400 metres as a 16-year-old at a Junior international in July 1984 That Junior International you speak of is one of the so callednon notable races you refer to and once again, you failed to call it what it was.... I won a gold medal in that Team GB meeting... it wasn't a club match??
  • The BBC interview could not cover everything, due to time constraints and only highlighted my major achievements. After retiring I moved to London and got back into athletics. I then competed in the Cyprus Games, which was televised and I won gold medal in the 100m 1992....
  • The Cosford Indoor Games is a major televised British meeting.... where is the mention of me winning Gold there and breaking the 400m track record. twice??Berture77 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Meeting at Gateshead was a major British Televised Meeting, Flo Jo did not compete in low key races... Where is the mention of me winning a silver Medal at that meeting in the 4 x 400m relay?
  • The Junior Australian Games was also televised, I won 3 Golds there, which is not mentioned in the article
  • So far that's 6 gold medals and 2 silver Medals for Team GB Events missing from the article.
  • The bronze medal at the European Juniors was NOT the most notable medal I won, which is what your article suggests. Berture77 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Berture77 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in charge of anything on wikipedia. All articles on wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and I referred to you by your surname out of respect (using someone's first name can be interpreted as being over familiar). I've never said something was "not notable enough" but simply described things as being less notable than the European Junior Championships. All articles on wikipedia have to go by reliable sources. As soon as a reliable source is found on the Australia Games & other events, that info can added (I've looked but have been unsuccessful).

My edits on your page were entirely in good faith, and I've never set out to portray anyone as mediocre, if that was my intention why would I have bothered expanding a stub article on you, mentioning you were a medallist at a major championships, a national champion, and a former British number one, but by the reaction, I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bothered. The Flo-Jo meet was televised but was not a major championships (and she did compete at some relatively minor meets, most athletes do in preparation for major champs).

I've been on wikipedia for seven years and have created or expanded many articles on British athletes of the 1980s & 1990s (mostly female), including Georgina Oladapo, Maxine Newman, Julia Bennett, Lorraine Baker, Paula Dunn, Joanne Mulliner, Jacqui Parker, Wendy Jeal, Jill Hunter, Sharon Colyear, Gowry Retchakan etc.... the list goes on and on. You were in no means a special case.

With respect, It hasn't been confirmed to me that you are Loreen Hall, and I notice you did not argue about me saying you were not second at the 1988 Olympic trials (I said Pat Beckford was). So am I correct on that? L1975p (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • My response to L1795p That was obviously an error... I was referring to winning a Silver Medal in the AAA championships you wrote in your article as 2nd place. (there is no need for me to make up winning races, I won a fare share of Gold and Silver Medals for Great Britain... Berture77 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting silly, by saying "you were not a special case", I was pointing out that in no way was I singling out the Loreen Hall page for attention (as I hope the list of athletes I mentioned showed). I don't know any of the athletes who's pages I have edited. With the greatest of respect, you were quite explicit in a previous post that you got automatic selection in 1988 (sorry but it wasn't an obvious error to me). You said you "won silver at the Olympic trials", which again with respect, you didn't. I have created, edited and expanded articles on many athletes (others include Dawn Gandy, Helen Thorpe, Amy Wickus, Tatyana Reshetnikova, Diana Richburg, Janet Bell, Lynne Robinson, Sharon McPeake etc..), for seven years now, as nothing more than a hobby, which up until now was enjoyable. L1975p (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Meets WP:NOLY. Reliably sourced. Not spam, defamatory, or copyvio. Can't see any reason to delete, though I'm not sure what to make of the BLP deletion request. Adam9007 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • On further investigation, I can find hardly any evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG, which is still a requirement even if WP:NOLY is met. Are the keep votes based on a misinterpretation of WP:NOLY? Adam9007 (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam9007: Please assume good faith with your fellow editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loreen Hall :p In fact, when one (i.e., me) !votes on the basis of SNG, tht implies that a WP:BEFORE has already been carried out, and thus GNG has concomitantly been established. I.e., there's no misinterpretation of nothin'. Happy editing! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 08:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Would Like To Close The Discussion & Remove My Deletion Request

  • Can anyone advise me on how I remove my deletion request and close this discussion?
  • I've had a bit of space to think about things and would now like to work on expanding the article with information that can be sourced by newspapers, athletic weekly magazines, etc to support the several winnings at major meetings.
  • @L1795p with my input and other wiki members we can get the article to read correctly. I appreciate you removing the word (failed), since I was offended by that , although the article still lacks relevant information, which I can provide, with source.Berture77 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Berture77 (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advice from anyone would be appreciated I know nothing about finding my way around wiki as a subscribed member. Thank youBerture77 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I was just in the process of posting this advice to your talk page. The bottom line: 1) formally withdraw your request for deletion, which you have now done, and 2) copy the information about changes you would like to see in the article to Talk:Loreen Hall. It can be investigated and responded to there; not here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2018 (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.