Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Wardell

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 redirect to Britain's Next Top Model (cycle 11). WP:IAR closing; this seems like an entirely non-controversial redirect, which can be reversed if the subject becomes more independently notable. (non-admin closure) Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 15:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Wardell[edit]

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

No reliable sources : OK Magazine has no "reputaiton for fact-checking and accuracy.
Fails WP:GNG: lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.
The competition is not "a well-known and significant award or honor", so WP:ANYBIO does not apply.
Wardell's only claim to notability is a single event: WP:BLP1E applies and the contents of this scraggy stub is already completely covered in Britain's Next Top Model. This is an encyclopedia, not a catalogue of everyone who gets their "15 minutes of fame". RexxS (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Weakened) keep - Britain's Next Top Model, the British version of the Top Model series, is a well-known national competition similar to a beauty pageant, covered significantly in multiple reliable sources. Therefore, in my opinion, its winners meet point 1 of ANYBIO.

I'd like to add that if people disagree that winning Top Model is significant, a centralized discussion or notability guideline review may be in order, and may be better than case-by-case AfDs. Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 11:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most people in the English-speaking world have not heard of "Britain's Next Top Model". It's just another British TV show. We don't need a centralised discussion because WP:BASIC is not at all ambiguous about what is required to establish notability. It needs no review. As for WP:ANYBIO and similar additional criteria, the introduction above it (Wikipedia:Notability (people) #Additional criteria) makes it clear: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Every topic needs to meet WP:GNG. --RexxS (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most people in the English-speaking world have not heard of "Britain's Next Top Model". It's just another British TV show. - sorry, but that argument's basis is just too weak. There is absolutely no evidence to prove it. As for WP:ANYBIO and similar additional criteria, the introduction above it (Wikipedia:Notability (people) #Additional criteria) makes it clear: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. - it explicitly says people are likely to be notable if they meet any one notability guideline. Not certain, but likely. That goes for every guideline: notability is presumed, including with GNG. Every topic needs to meet WP:GNG. - in the lead of WP:N, it says "a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in [{{Notability guide}}]", so no, to meet N, topics do not necessarily need to meet GNG if they already meet another guideline. Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 12:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly as well supported as your assertion that "winning Top Model is significant". There is absolutely no evidence to prove it. ANYBIO explicitly says that meeting it "does not guarantee that a subject should be included". You're wrong about subject-specific guidelines: presumption =/= guarantee. So no, topics still need to meet all of GNG, even if they meet an additional criterion- and that includes passing the hurdles of WP:NOT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:BLP1E, which you have failed to address. To show notability, any article has to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and all that the subject-specific guidelines do is indicate that the requirement is likely to be met. This article presently has zero reliable sources and your addition of OK Magazine as if it were a reliable source is unsupportable for encyclopedic content. --RexxS (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, ANYBIO does not list any examples of a significant award. So I guess "Top Model wins are/are not significant" could be all personal opinion. My point was that presumption does not mean "guaranteed": there is no guarantee of notability for any guideline at all (hence why it's "notability guideline" instead of "notability definition" or "notability policy"). If a person meets GNG, they are presumed (but not guaranteed) to be notable. If they meet a different guideline at WP:BIO, they are presumed (but not guaranteed) to be notable. I can't see "all topics need to meet GNG as well" anywhere on WP:BIO. As far as WP:BLP1E goes, I think the subject may meet point 3, because Wardell did have a substantial role in Britain's Next Top Model. As far as the content in the article is concerned, that's another matter that can hopefully be dealt with, but it's not relevant to this discussion (WP:NEXIST). I do have a feeling that if notability is met here, it may just be scraped given the probable failure to meet GNG. Because of this, I will weaken my keep vote a bit. I may re-assess my position entirely if I find there is much better reason to delete the article (at its possible best) than to keep it, but for now I'm not convinced. Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 13:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. I probably wasn't clear enough about ANYBIO: that is an additional criterion according to WP:Notability (people); and the basic criteria for people is exactly the same as for GNG – and just the same formula is used in most of the subject-specific guidelines, which is why I conclude that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is a fundamental requirement for notability (subject to the usual disclaimers, of course). --RexxS (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue This appears to be an editing dispute, and any editing decision from AfD would not be binding even if considered. See WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Which bit of "fails GNG" did you think was an editing dispute? --RexxS (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your nomination stipulates that the topic itself is not eligible for deletion, as it is covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia. You've also mentioned that the topic has had 15 minutes of fame, which means that you realize that your claim that there are "no reliable sources" is an unresearched straw man. IMO, this is an article that needs WP:Editing policy (editors) and possibly discussion on that talk page of the article, not deletion specialists forcing-the-hand of the editors doing the work. Unscintillating (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia does not disqualify an article from deletion: it makes the case that the encyclopedia would lose nothing by deleting this unsourced BLP, which does not meet our standards for a stand-alone article. You seem to not understand that a person can have their "15 minutes of fame", without ever appearing in any reliable source, unless you have somehow reached the conclusion that OK! Magazine has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If reliable sources are so easy to find, why haven't you found them? Go ahead - click on the Find sources: [news] link at the head of this page, read the sources and weep: "Daily Mail"; "The Sun"; "Daily Star"; "OK! Magazine", "Daily Echo", "Romsey Advertiser". Do you really want to build an encyclopedia based on the musings of the Romsey Advertiser? As for "deletion specialists", I have 26,000 edits over almost 10 years, and I seriously doubt that I have made a dozen AfD nominations. So you might want to reconsider further ad hominem attempts before you embarrass yourself further. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem here is not your expertise or lack thereof on embarrassment, but your expertise or lack thereof on WP:Deletion policy. So, now you are looking at turning this into a WP:DEL9 BLP argument. There is, relatedly, superficial merit to a WP:DEL7 argument (totally fails WP:V), with argument for "delete and redirect". But DEL7 requires that you try to correct the deficiency, which you don't appear to want to do. So you'd also need to add WP:IAR to your WP:DEL7 argument. Your argument as it stands is that you used an unreliable source to conclude that this person has had 15 minutes of fame, and that the TV show where this supposedly occurred is itself somehow an unreliable primary source. Unscintillating (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - A "wrong venue" !vote doesn't need to attempt to discuss notability; in fact, doing so is a way to have one's !vote discounted, as closers would see engagement in a dispute that the !vote claims belongs elsewhere. Unscintillating (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        So your argument is based on my lack of experience of deletion policy? Fair enough, I certainly have little experience in deleting articles. But you seem to imagine that means I can't tell when an article doesn't meet our standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. That's where you're dead wrong. This emaciated little stub not only has no sourcing that you could call reliable, but is on a subject where no sources exist that could be called reliable. Because I've been unable to find any, you make the erroneous conclusion that I haven't looked. You're dead wrong again. It is plainly ludicrous to expect me to "correct the deficiency" (of reliable sources), when it is clear that no such sources exist. Please feel free to explain how you think anybody is going to perform that impossible task. Preferably without wasting all our time reading how we might delete this sad excuse for an article, when it's obvious that it just needs to be put out of its misery. --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, given everything said, a good compromise would be to just redirect this to Britain's Next Top Model (cycle 11), the season of BNTM that she won. Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 22:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WP:IAR is a policy, so if you think looking for sources to assert WP:DEL7 is unreasonable, your position is backed by policy. Unscintillating (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It is also a policy to preserve the work including the edit history of other editors. Unscintillating (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have no particular interest in engaging here, as I have seen this issue many times. The editors, who don't like stand-alone articles for beauty pageant winners whom they consider to be non-notable, can merge the standalone articles into lists of brief biographies. I've never seen this happen. Instead, we get a never-ending stream of AfDs and editors content to work against policy to achieve deletions. Unscintillating (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If you want to pursue this, IMO you can (1) disengage and wait for delete !votes and expect to get a closer who will count !votes. Or, (2) agree that the TV show itself is a reliable primary source, agree that the topic exists elsewhere in the encyclopedia so is not eligible for topic deletion, and argue under WP:DEL7 WP:V#Notability that no secondary sources exist (some might say that two secondary sources are needed) so the content and edit history can be deleted for a "delete and redirect" result. Unscintillating (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Britain's Next Top Model (cycle 11); not independently notable. Should the subject have a notable career post-show, a stand-alone article could be restored. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as noted because this is in fact the venue for examining and judging articles therefore anywhere else would be inapplicable; current information and sources are underwhelming for actual notability and would not help for substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 6 July 2017 (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.