Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Glover

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Glover[edit]

Requesting courtesy deletion of this article per a request from Louise Glover. Although sourced, the article stands little chance of developing to featured status and it has been a chronic source of WP:BLP problems. Per the precedents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Fishkin, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Finkelstein_(2nd), and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_(14th_nomination), this is not an especially famous person and the individual who is most affected by this article's existence would be happier without it. Let's do the gracious thing and delete. Durova^Charge! 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete re BLP and nominator. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~ "stands little chance of developing to featured status" is a rather high bar, and not necessarily justified, even. The problem the subject has seems to be one court conviction that was reported by the BBC News, that we devote one sentence to in our article. We can remove the tabloidy stuff, but the BBC News isn't a tabloid, it's the main news agency for the United Kingdom. What we can do is balance it. She had a hard life growing up, that has been written about in reliable sources, we can write that in out article. She prominently supports a specific charity, similarly. She has a fair amount of coverage in several different magazines and the St. Helens Star (which covers the charity, and her Malaysian travel, but also reports on the community service conviction, by the way). We may not make it to featured article, but we can make it into a reasonable article. Unlike Brandt and Finkelstein who claimed they were private, not public, persons, Glover is a professional glamour model. Appearing in the media is how she lives. That's hard to mesh with a claim of being a private person. She is also fairly successful at being a glamour model - Playboy Special Editions Model of the Year is a notable role, and not her only one. And she is just a few years into her career, she fully intends to keep appearing in international magazines, if we delete the article, people will want to recreate it almost immediately, she shows up in the media fairly regularly. Anyway, this AFD has 5 days to run. I intend to add the additional reliable sources I found to the article, and see if I can expand it into a reasonable article, and balance the one sentence about the conviction. Then, I can hopefully show up back here and change this mere Comment into a full Keep. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would Wikipedia's coverage of any significant topic be seriously hampered by one less glamor model biography? Most of the contestants from America's Next Top Model don't have their own biographies even though they've all been television personalities and (presumably) most of them are successful professionals in the same field. The longstanding problem at this article that Louise Glover has received more coverage in the unreliable tabloid press than in reliable sources, so editors who are unfamiliar with site standards keep recreating the same problems. This creates a net drain on productive volunteer time and a source of unneeded stress for Ms. Glover. WP:BLP isn't supposed to work that way. Durova^Charge! 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In other words, "I'm not interested in this field and don't know much about it, so the encyclopedia shouldn't either"? What is a "significant topic"? Wikipedia:Notability says it's one that reliable sources write about. Modeling is a topic reliable sources write about. Give me a couple of days to prove it. By the way, the contestants from America's Next Top Model are competing to reach the status that Glover has reached. She is a top model. You will notice that the winners of that show do have their own articles. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The logic that carried in all three examples cited above is that WP:V and WP:BLP intersect here, so in instances where the completeness of the encyclopedia isn't affected a biography subject's stated wish deserves some weight in the discussion. Louise Glover is no Tony Blair, after all. This discussion will last a couple of days before you and I and everyone else walks away from it, but Ms. Glover lives with the outcome. People Google her name and this page is a top return. The BLP problems cause her grief and consistently take volunteer time away from productive endeavors. Wouldn't we all be better off by doing the gracious thing? Durova^Charge! 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. 22 references. 18 independent, non-trivial, articles from 11 reliable sources focusing on her. Playboy Model of the Year really is the top of the glamour model field, being the first Briton to achieve it doesn't hurt either. She is non-negligible as a beauty queen either, having won Miss Great Britain candidate for Miss Earth, and Miss Hawaiian Tropic UK, besides her many lesser titles. She is on the cover of dozens of top-shelf magazines in a dozen different countries, and has every intention of continuing to be on more covers.[1] [2] Highly notable. And a fairly interesting story, if I do say so myself. Is it a featured article? No. But it's nothing to sneer at either. Changing to Keep. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And there will certainly be a lot of people demanding an article on her if she does eventually becomes a WWE wrestler. Epbr123 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the fact I can't think of any good reason to keep. RMHED 19:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that it has been rewritten and is no longer trivia strewn and sensationalist. RMHED (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to delete and articles aren't required to be deleted if they can't become FAs. Article is referenced with good sources, although some of them need to be changed to inline citations. Satisfied WP:N and WP:V. Nobody of Consequence 19:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I could accept the argument that one less article about a glamour model is no big deal if the same logic was also applied to, let's say, classes of steam locomotives. But it isn't. Glover seems to pass the notability test, so I'm in favour of keeping the article, on the basis that AnonEMouse adds a little bit more balance to the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on it. I added a dozen good sources and removed some of the unsourced stuff she complained about yesterday. She has actually gotten significant coverage from quite a few newspapers, and while the St Helens Star is just a local paper, the Liverpool Echo seems to be the second most-widely read evening newspaper in the country. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly, I had to think about this one somewhat, since I do believe there is some threshhold. But, in terms of I-know-it-when-I-see-it, this isn't it. There's a lot of potential for mischief here, and very little "public interest" factor -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An bad application of a bad principle. Subjects ought not have control of what is written about them here, or in any reputable information source. In this case the reason for preferring deletion is obvious--there is well sourced notable negative content that clearly passes BLP. So the subject says, in effect, if the article has such content I don't want one at all--I cannot imagine she would object to it otherwise.. Nobody should ever have such right--it amounts to giving them censorship over the contents of a an article. It amounts to the abandonment of a foundational principle. if we do not have allegiance to NPOV, why are we here? DGG (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cleanup by AnonEMouse. Epbr123 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the massive cleanup effort and referencing done by AnonEMouse. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand this repeated appeal to "doing the gracious thing". Is there a WP:GRACIOUS that anyone can point me to? The point made earlier about censorship, no matter how "graciously" it might be done is surely the important one here. This either an encyclopedia or it's not. The issue is quite simply whether the subject is notable, and whether the article conforms to WP:BIO. The answer to both questions since the recent work put into it has to be yes, and so it should not be censored. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO changed last summer to allow more scope for this kind of nomination. Several biographies have received courtesy deletions or redirects as a result. This is a very uncommon request, but granting it has been becoming the norm. The deletion discussions linked in the nomination shed some light on that, I hope. Durova^Charge! 22:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a policy that allows for the possibility of censorship and actually carrying out the censorship allowed for are two different things. What may happened before does not shed light on what should happen now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. How is this nomination different from the three successful examples cited above? I defined the scope of the proposal very carefully in order to avoid the potential for misuse as a censorship wedge issue. Your concerns are valid and I think they've been addressed adequately. If more is needed I'll gladly respond. Durova^Charge! 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that bad cases make bad law. The fact that articles have been "graciously" deleted in the past has no bearing on this article, where notability has been more than adequately demonstrated by the work that AnonEMouse has carried out. The article now gives a balanced view of a notable, public person. To delete it on the basis that the subject doesn't like it can only be considered to be censorship IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be your view in terms of the "dead trees standard" I proposed in the previous nominations? Namely, if the person isn't notable enough to be covered in a paper-and-ink encyclopedia (at least a specialty one), then courtesy deletion upon request is a fair thing to do because the impact on the individual outweighs the impact on Wikipedia? That seemed like a good way to avoid the slippery slope. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view is very simple. Wikipedia is not printed on dead trees, and so the restrictions that paper-and-ink encyclopedias have do not apply. The slippery slope is that what claims to be an encyclopedia has started to delete material because it makes the subject of an article unhappy. That slippery slope leads to censorship. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly notable enough to warrant an article. Eusebeus (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Insufficient reason for deletion. We shouldn't delete articles as a courtesy to the subject unless we're willing to do that for any subject. (And if we do that for any subject, then our credibility as an encyclopedia would erode quickly.) I don't think that an article's chances of ever reaching featured status have anything to do with whether or not an article should be deleted either. Rray (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments of Malleus Fatuorum above. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:45, 8 December 2007 (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.