Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Glover (2nd nomination)

Add links
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.

The discussion here gives rise to no consensus to delete, in fact there is nothing remotely approaching such a consensus. Indeed, for the following reasons, the consensus is to keep. None of the delete !voters have argued that the subject fails any accepted inclusion standards (such as WP:BIO). The argument on the delete side is that the article should be deleted because of the harm it is causing the subject. That argument has, to a large extent, been refuted by the more numerous keep !votes who have questioned whether deletion is, at this stage, an appropriate and proportionate solution to the harm. That refutation hasn't been answered. Editors have recognised the changes to the article and adminstrative actions that have taken place during the course of the AfD to try to address the harm.

Our deletion guidelines for administrators say:

When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to the admin's discretion.

This has not affected the outcome. This AfD has shown no ambiguity about the subject's notability. In any event, I would have given little weight to the subject's wishes on the basis - arising from the consensus here - that those wishes have not been exhaustively pursued through non-deletion avenues.

Similarly, our deletion policy says:

Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete.

Again, this AfD has not shown that the subject is a relatively unknown, non-public figure. And there is a rough consensus: a consensus to keep. In any event, I would have not have exercised the discretion to close as delete for the reason given above.

I should add that I do not have OTRS access. I have not seen the OTRS ticket. I have merely taken into account the representations of the subject's wishes in this AfD and on the article and its talk page. It is not proper for a closing administrator to be privy to any more information than the participants in the discussion. Mkativerata (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Glover[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Louise Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has requested deletion via OTRS. This does not qualify under BLPBAN and the subject has given no reason within the law or policy for it to be deleted.

Regardless, as an OTRS member I am bound to fulfill their request and ask that it be deleted. Ticket number is 2010111810011601 for those who would like to see. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep no reason given to delete this article. It may be worth attempting to engage with the subject to work out if there's a reasonable compromise, i.e. if there are specific issues with the article that are factually incorrect for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I assure you that has already been tried. Thank you for being so understanding. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there any additional information you can pass along to those without OTRS access about why she wishes it deleted, or was it more a statement of "I don't want to be there - get rid of it"? Tabercil (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately I'm not allowed to say what was in the email, only that I received it and what reasons they had under policy. It was a very personal email so in this instance I really don't want to give too much away. However, as long as we have a good AfD I can come back to her and let her know that the community wishes to keep the article but that process has been followed and where would she like to go from here. Please accept my sincerest apologies for not being able to say more. I know it makes these things more difficult for everyone involved. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Understood. Perhaps you could discourage her from using multiple sockpuppets to continually remove information from the article? I'll semi-protect it shortly if the blanking continues. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whilst I share the frustration at the mystery meat nature of some OTRS reports, it's fairly obvious, in this particular instance, what the problems are from the article-space and talk page contributions of Louiseglover (talk · contribs), Ianglover63 (talk · contribs), Iangregory70 (talk · contribs), Lidia smith (talk · contribs), and ModelPeeps (talk · contribs). Read them. Uncle G (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, but blanking just the unpleasant parts of history is inappropriate, as we all know. I guess I'll have to protect the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes I'd say it was pretty obvious. I have emailed her to ask her to stop. Hopefully something will come of that. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • So blanking the offending section's probably out of the question, but is it possible to pare it back? Tabercil (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article easily passes notability requirements. Dismas|(talk) 13:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article as it stands passes the WP:GNG requirements in my opinion. Tabercil (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence: The article is certainly well-written and seems to be fairly neutral. She has attracted significant major press attention, including a 318 word article by the BBC. On the other hand, the vast majority of sources are newspapers such as the Liverpool Echo, St Helens Reporter, and Liverpool Daily Post. Those papers have been around for a while, but I shall defer to an Englishperson to say whether or not they are local papers or large ones. Tthe article seems to pass both WP:PORNBIO #4 and and WP:GNG and is in good enough shape so as not to merit deletion for just being terrible.

    On the other hand, there is another matter to consider—Ms. Glover hasn't really done anything of importance. She has posed for magazines, but of the readers of those (who only saw her a number of years ago and probably don't remember her name at all), I am not sure how many would really care about her life story. I wonder how much the encyclopedia would miss having the article around. NW (Talk) 15:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Now Delete. Xymmax makes a compelling argument. NW (Talk) 05:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Educationally the article is of no benefit to the project at all. It is upsetting the subject who has attempted to correct details she says are false and the repeated insistence on including a section related to a minor assault (she has a scrap at a nightclub - whoopee-do this is what wikipedia is for) which wikipedia is now the primary location for the propagation of such personal trivia about her private life. As others have said there are also sourcing issues, with the inclusion and repeating of a fair bit of content cited to celebrity columns. All in all as NW opines, no net loss.Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - she has courted publicity and now wants the article deleted? If there are BLP/WEIGHT etc issues let's deal with them, but she is clearly notable per WP:BIO and any other guideline you can think of. ukexpat (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NW, I'm in the small minority that marginally notable BLPs who requested their article to be deleted should be deleted. Secret account 17:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per our 'do no harm' 'ideal'. I've just read the ticket and can vouch that this article is clearly doing the young lady a great deal of harm. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we can accept that the subject feels that the article isn't in her favour. However, there's no doubting that someone who advertises themselves with so many notable international appearances appears to be notable. Perhaps a seriously cut-down version of the article could be negotiated? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think her website counts as a independent source of the subject, nor her myspace. Secret account 21:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps I'm confused then. There exists no doubt whatsoever that she's notable. Nor does there exist any doubt that she courts "positive" publicity with an enormous roll-call of appearances, which includes multiple publication by major outlets (e.g. Playboy, FHM etc) so why wouldn't Wikipedia have an article about her? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kind of agreeing with RM here... when I made my initial vote I went by what was present and referenced, plus some checking to see if said reference existed and backed up the statement. I didn't realize that some of them were perhaps less than ideal (per NW and the Scott MacDonald talk page) and that some of them made statements that Louise says didn't happen (e.g., in the Scott talk page, Uncle G indicates that "never been to israel, nor teached disadvantage children english"). So at the least I think we should pare it back to either sources that clearly reliable (e.g., BBC) or clearly did interview Louise (I'm thinking the Playboy and Savvy articles for instance). Do I think we should delete? It depends on what it looks like after the paring is done, but I think an argument will still be made that she is notable based on what's left. Tabercil (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Off2rioRob, per Secret, per Cavalry, and per WP:BLP and per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:PERSISTENCE. Noone's going to care about these nightclub scrapes in ten years. The article is mostly an orphan, so there isn't any harm to the encyclopedia from deleting it. THF (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Specific objectionable content has been removed and article has been placed on pending changes. That's really the appropriate response, especially since the article contains plenty of other RS'ed information demonstrating notability. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while I probably wouldn't pass this article as a Good Article anymore, the sources suggest that she meets any and all relevant notability guidelines. While I completely agree that anything that is not acceptably sourced should be removed, overall the subject of the article is not a marginal figure and has the backing to justify an article. Canadian Paul 06:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject passes the GNG, and the nom hasn't proffered any policy grounds founded in deletion policy that would lead us to consider the alternative. Frankly, this looks like something of an end run around OTRS' own system to me. That you can't always delete an article at OTRS just because the subject wants it to be means that, the nom's premise notwithstanding, there is no duty to attempt to get the community to delete it for you. "Sorry, no" should have ended the matter. And if folks are looking for more solid news sources than the Liverpool Daily Post, how about this from BBC News about the suspended sentence Glover received in February for assault? [1] There is this curious notion running around Wikipedia that "do no harm" and the BLP means we ought not say disparaging things about subjects, at least not until they pass an unwritten naughtiness threshold and a majority decides that they're scum and fair targets. This is not what the relevant policies state; they merely stress the need for ironclad sourcing and not to apply undue weight to titillating details. "In February 2010, Glover was convicted of an assault committed in 2007, and received a suspended sentence of 30 months" is substantively it.  Ravenswing  15:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure if your going to keep the article then a small comment about that, especially with a high quality citation like that, may well be notable for a brief mention, but it is the way users add tabloid content and wording and titillating style that brings us to the position that we find ourselves in here where the living subject is upset at our articles portrayal of her. We have a duty of care to living people to follow all our policies in regards to their articles to the letter, this was not being done and the subject has become extremely upset about it, so what I hear some comments here, well that is not my wiki, my wiki is one where we are respectful to our subjects and we insist on creating the best article we can about them, an article that is respectful and fully compliant with policies and cited to the highest quality reports and locations. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahhhh ... but that, then, is a content dispute, inappropriate for AfD.  Ravenswing  19:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not really, we are here because the subject has requested deletion, there are some people that support such requests in some cases and thats why we are here, you do not seem to support that but some do, I do in this situation. If its kept as looks likely then the content discussions that have started here will hopefully continue on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep It is a "Good Article" Thus I have strong reservations about deleting it with a essentially WP:IDONTLIKE argument. The individual has worked hard to be notable, Its not an involuntary become notable. I strongly agree with do no harm so I am a little torn here. If some one could send a Copy of OTRS letter (If that is possible), I will probably reconsider. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you contact me via email I can tell you a bit more about it. Wikipedia:OTRS#Dispute resolution explains why we can't give it out publicly or go into much detail! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having been in communication with Cavalry about the issues the Living person expressed, and looking over Uncle G trimming of the article. Previous to Uncle G's work, I would have had grave concerns. As the article stands now, I can't support delete at all. I think it would be advisable to use Rev-delete on older versions with the BLP Violations. Its my understanding and its quite possible to I am mistaken that Over Sighters or maybe just Developers have the ability to delete portions of revisions. I think this is what need to happen. It is was one the most disturbing BLP violations that I have seen occur. I dont want dug out of the history by shit-stirrers. This is a reminder to us all that that BLP content can have unintended real world effects on individuals. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interestingly, Canadian Paul, the GA reviewer, has said above that xe wouldn't regard this as a good article any more. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mainly because I find that to be the least problematic of the imperfect options. First, I have no question that she meets our notability guidelines. I do not think that she's highly notable, but I think that she clearly is past our admittedly low notability bar. Second, I believe that the information about the subject's scrapes with the law are reliably reported, and need to be mentioned in any article that purports to be a biography. Third, I have viewed the OTRS ticket, and accept the sincereity of the request there. In balancing these things, I note that while the community has rejected WP:OPTOUT, we have previously considered a subject's wishes as one of many factors in determining whether deletion is appropriate. I feel that this is a case in which the subject is not so notable that we must maintain a biography of her against her wishes. I think that I would feel differently if the reliable sources available were of greater depth. As things stand however, we can only reliably source sensationalist, tabloid quality facts. Those things alone do not a biography make. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG handily. The subject's concerns can be handled by trimming the NOTNEWS stuff. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete while technically meeting gng there is nothing here of lasting significance to justify keeping this rather silly tabloid piece. Would ask everyone who believes we should keep this for purely technical reasons to think about the effect this has on the subject.--Misarxist 09:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are any number of articles on notorious, living people, and I'm sure they would all much rather not have Wikipedia articles commemorating their lives and deeds. The distinction is that most of those people probably didn't give numerous press interviews, seek exposure in magazines, set up Facebook fan pages and Twitter feeds, put out newsletters to their fans or continue to put themselves in the public eye. So far, the alleged "problem" with this article - judging from the links that UncleG contributed - is that over the course of several years, some parties claiming to be Glover keep trying to delete well-sourced information that others seek to include, several of the sources coming from interviews which Glover gave herself. Huh?

    Folks, take a good hard look at this. Glover has an active web site [2]. She's got an active MySpace page [3] on which her most recent blog entry (two days ago) she discusses having her breast implants removed. She's got an active Twitter feed [4]. She's got an official Facebook page [5]. This is not remotely a person aversive to the public eye, nor someone eager to leave public life. This is nothing more than an attempt to eliminate ongoing sources of negative publicity outside the control of Glover or her handlers, and where that involves noteworthy, verifiable incidents reported by reliable sources in an otherwise notable article, we should strenuously oppose that. BLP doesn't give public figures the right to suppress negative information about themselves.  Ravenswing  12:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Baby. Bathwater. If there are BLP issues in the article, then fix them. If Ms. Glover or her publicist does not like the aggregation of what reliable sources say about her, then tough. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject appears notable and appears to have sought publicity. If there are BLP issues, fix them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to meet the GNG. We are not required to meet subject's requests for deletion when it does no harm, as here. asRG Traynor says, she courts publicity, so she has no valid reason to object to a NPOV article. (In my opinion, , permitting a marginally notable subject's views on whether or not to have an article to be taken into account was a major error of ours--it intrinsically violates NPOV, for it provides marginally notable subjects to censor their articles. Fortunately, even the change in policy to permit it makes it optional--we are not required to take it into account. I would advocate we never should. If some of the contents violate, that can & should be dealt with--I would incline towards removing the last paragraph in section 2.1; it is not relevant to her actual notability, and I;d do so whether or not she asked us to. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 23 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Louise_Glover_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069023197"