Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (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 delete. (Note: This article is about an actress, not about the British Prime Minister.) Numerically we're about split (10 keep, 14 delete, 1 merge per the autocount). This causes me to look at the arguments in more detail. The "delete" opinions mostly say that we lack sufficient sourcing, which is a strong argument. I'd expect the "keep" opinions to rebut it with references to reliable sources that do show the sort of coverage we normally require to keep an article. However, most do not. Some say that the more notable Theresa May becoming Prime Minister is not a reason for deleting this article - but that is not the argument advanced by the "delete" side, so this "keep" argument must be discounted. Similarly, most other "keep" opinions do not address the substance of the sourcing issue, with the exception of some who note that her coverage does seem to pass the inclusion guideline for porn actresses, or that she has received recent coverage for being confused with the politician - but this line of argument seems to convince relatively few people. In view of this, I consider that the "delete" opinions constitute consensus after weighing the relative strength of the arguments advanced in the light of guidelines and policy.  Sandstein  12:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa May (actress)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Teresa May (actress) (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)

Doubful notability PatGallacher (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This person did survive a deletion discussion back in 2008, but I suggest it would be worth looking at her again. It is far from clear to me that this person is notable. Now that a person with a very similar notable name is about to become Prime Minister of the UK, it could look a bit odd to some people to have the article on the PM with a hatnote pointing to a glamour model. However, if we decide that the glamour model is notable, then we are going to have to do that. PatGallacher (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, there are no secondary sources for this article so notability is very doubtful. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But also bear in mind that the notability (or otherwise) of this subject should not be (indeed, is not) influenced by whether we have to have a tag on another page. Muffled Pocketed 16:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree, never said it should. However under different circumstances people might feel inclined to let sleeping dogs lie in relation to an article which survived a deletion discussion a few years ago, even if they had their doubts about whether that decision was the right one. PatGallacher (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the outcome here, it would be WP:UNDUE to burden Theresa May with a hatnote leading to a page on Teresa May, which is not even spelled the same.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be necessary if Teresa May redirects to Theresa May. The only other options would be a hard disambiguation page between the two at Teresa May instead, or keeping that directed to the porn actress. If this is kept, those are the three options really, you can't redirect someone with an article's name to somebody else and not mention them anywhere, as you're essentially orphaning them in our search. KaisaL (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine question, forgive me if I'm just not following. Is it permissible to have Teresa May search go to the actress, but with a hatnote, and meanwhile just leave Theresa May search going to the correct Theresa May, no note? I feel like anyone who is looking for the actress and winds up at the Prime Minister page will know or easily discern what's gone amiss so I agree with E.M. Gregory that the burden on Theresa May isn't warranted; and meanwhile a hatnote on Teresa May's page will sort out anyone looking for the PM who's simply misspelled the name. I think this is preferable to the disambiguation page for Teresa May, which right now lists the actress first (because alphabetical, I assume?); my inclination is to think going straight to the actress page but with a note up top basically saying, "You sure you didn't mean the prime minister?" more firmly (and accurately) distinguishes between the two than does a list of T(h)eresas. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. I don't believe the notability criteria has been met. Calvin (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Houston, We Have a Problem This very minor porn model/actress has some very small claim to having had a WP worthy career (jury is still out on that). On the other hand, she is rapidly acquiring notoriety for her nominal similarity to Britain's highly probably next Prime Minister. (Worsened by the fact that some media outlets misspell the politician's name as "Teresa".) The sourcing for this porn actress is not much, although it exists the Daily Mirror seems to be the storngest source [1], but a naked photo in the Daily Mirror ≠ WP:NOTABILITY.α Teresa May, and - based on the enormous number of misspellings out there - redirecting WP searches on "Teresa May" to the politician. If this article is kept, I advocate redirecting "Teresa May" to the actress. I am boldly moving this article to Teresa May (actress). Now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^α At this point, I am leaning towards delete
    • Unfortunately you could have screwed up the deletion process, since people looking for the article which it is proposed to delete could now be going to the article on the future PM. PatGallacher (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – I changed header content for this AfD to the name of the moved page which is nominated for deletion: "Teresa May (actress)" (diff). North America1000 20:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The situation with Theresa May is a strange one, because if we do keep Teresa May redirected to her we'd have no choice but to disambiguate. We'd probably actually end up causing occasional blog and social media posts about it just by doing it. However, I don't think it's likely to be an issue because I really don't see any assertion of notability, she's been in a ton of porn and a music video but I don't see any substantial coverage in significant reliable sources. KaisaL (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that if worse comes to worst, that is, if sufficient sources surface or develop that this article has to be kept, we can avert a hatnote at Theresa May's page by covering this Teresa May to something analogous to the Campaign for "santorum" neologism - the Santorum google fiasco did not make Wikipedia look good either: [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing that the actress/model has an especially strong or reliably sourceable claim to encyclopedic notability; lots of people have appeared in music videos and B-movies and porn without getting encyclopedia articles for it. Accordingly, I'd prefer to delete her. If she is kept, however, then the better solution to the dab dilemma would be for the plain title Teresa May to stand alone as a dab page — a common misspelling of a Prime Minister's name is close enough to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to require dabbing a minor actress even though the official spellings are different, WP:TWODABS pages are allowed to exist when circumstances warrant it, and the potential prurience involved is enough to make this one of those times when circumstances warrant. Though deletion of the actress/model is still preferable if real RS coverage about her can't be located — and a deletion discussion that took place almost a decade ago, when Wikipedia's notability and sourcing rules were a lot more loosey-goosey than they are today and her name-twin was just a moderately obscure opposition MP rather than the PM-designate of Great Brexitland, cannot be binding on the question of what happens now. And neither am I impressed by the admission in the original AFD discussion that an editor was actively maintaining the article on May's behalf; even under the abysmal standards of 2008, we did have conflict of interest rules against that kind of thing. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with title Teresa May (actress). The tabloids are making the subject increasingly notable. Readers will expect Wikipedia to provide information about her and within a few days there will be enough independently sourced data to make a solid bio. Have Teresa May point to the PM page, the primary meaning even if spelled wrong. No hatnote on the PM page and no DABs. Readers will find the actress page through Google search, which is how they find most articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP explicitly excludes tabloid sources though. I'm sure you're not wrong about reader interest, but we can only have an encyclopedia entry if we have enough reliable secondary sources to verify such an entry. If that's not available, it's not our fault that we can't provide an article and in fact, we best serve readers by maintaining that standard, and not covering things if we don't have sources with which to do so reliably. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The previous deletion discussion was very clear with not a single suggestion of delete. Having a name that is a homonym for the Prime Minister of the UK is not criteria for deletion. Agree with the suggestion of Moving to Teresa May (actress) and having this article as a DAB page. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said that her name was a deletion criterion in and of itself. But the flurry of activity that had to surround her name-twin this week, for obvious reasons, caused people to notice that this one is actually of questionable and not-sourced notability in the first place, which isn't the same thing as deleting her because name. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My view is that her getting a bit of current coverage for the similarity is a case of WP:BLP1E. Just because she's, umm, existed prior to now doesn't substantiate that any past events warrant an article, and having an article on somebody for their claim of having a similar name is a bit ridiculous. Also, I know this is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the media regularly run stories on people being mistaken for people and they're not notable, one example I can think of is the near annual story on @johnlewis on Twitter. So unless any reliably-sourced, significant claims to her relevance other than some brief bits on her having the same name as somebody famous come up, I still favour a delete. If she is kept, turn Teresa May into a disambiguation page. KaisaL (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just between you and me, this is very different from John Lewis. Reason is that this girl can make some real money selling her book, posters, videos of that old movie. If I was her publisher I would have oredered a new printing yesterday, and assigned a publicist. If I was her agent, I'd be... wait, her agent is probably the guy pitching articles to the Daily Mail, the Telegraph... and he's arranging a new contract and a publicity tour even as we write.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL pertains, though. Sure, she's in a position where she might be able to parlay this into renewed fame and fortune. But the time for an article will be once that has already happened, not when it's merely predicted as maybe becoming possible. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also just like to welcome any bloggers or newspapers that will probably be looking at this AFD debate for a quick piece on us discussing this. Hello! ;) KaisaL (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chuckle. Also, she has a book, "My Body in Your Hands, 2012. put out by an actual (minor) publisher. [4]. In this case, I believe that we can judge a book by its cover. It appears to have gotten no traction, but that is undoubtedly about to change.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The rise to (further) prominence of a person with a similar name is not a reason to delete a pre-existing article. The move to "Teresa May (actress)" is a good idea. Regards, 23:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete comes no where near meeting the notability requirements for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else's reasons. Recent spike of news coverage due to Britain's new Prime Minister, but Teresa without an H falls well short of WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very well known model in the UK for many years now, and is just as notable as any of the others. She was well known in England long before the current PM was known by the majority of the public. As some have pointed out, she is getting a higher profile (again) due to humorous comments being compared to the Tory leader, but the fact is when Theresa May became a well known politician, the joke then was that the glamour model must have gone into politics. Notability covers many aspects. This includes the past as well as the present day. At her peak, Teresa May the model was as well known as any glamour model in Britain! CliffordJones (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not conferred by assertions of notability — it's conferred by reliable source coverage which verifies the truth of the assertion. Funny how we're getting a lot of assertions that she's notable, yet nobody is actually lifting a finger to show that the level of reliable sourcing required to demonstrate her notability actually exists anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's the matter? Don't know how to use google search and do a bit of reading/research if it means that much to you and it's a life quest for you to know all about her glittering carrer? CliffordJones (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, I've poked around quite a bit and owing to the flurry of Theresa May coverage, I've had a really hard time excavating secondary sources on Tereas May other than in relation to Th May, and we need some other coverage or the entry will likely be excluded as WP:BLP1E. It's completely standard AfD protocol to ask for links to reliable secondary sources proving there's enough material to create a reliable entry from, particularly in cases like this where the entry does not yet include such sources. So if you have those sources, please do link us to them; otherwise deletion really becomes the only option, in my view. An entry's presence on Wikipedia cannot rely on hypothetical sources, it would be completely at odds with WP:V. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're the one who wants the article to be kept, then you're the one with the responsibility to put in the work needed to prove that the necessary level of sourcing exists. It's nobody else's responsibility to do your homework for you. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bearcat, for my own information may I ask a procedural question: do you mean (/is it consensus) that onus is on keep voters to prove their case, or, just, everyone who weighs in in any direction is expected to do their own homework? I kind of thought it was the latter--that is, any opinion is only worth the evidence that it musters--but, I have seen some AfD delete votes, and even AfD nominations, that seem more of the opinion that delete can be a default vote, and only keep needs to prove its case. I have found it frustrating in other cases that some folks seem not to have looked for sources at all before saying "delete" (not here, where evidence has been exceedingly difficult to come by) but maybe I'm wrong to. Sort me out? Thanks from an newish editor! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just another WP:PORNSTAR. Nothing notable here. Montanabw(talk) 05:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article doesn't demonstrate any notability. --Tataral (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:PORNSTAR- "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." Muffled Pocketed 15:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. She does plainly meet that test. I wonder if, 1, this is a case that calls for revisiting that standard though, or 2, (which I am more loathe to do) a case where we should invoke that the "likely" notability that guideline confers does not mean always, and we should exercise discretion. On either front my reasoning is, I just don't see enough secondary source material to write a biography! Would be happy to be shown material that could fill out an article on her life, but "she was in x,y,z unreviewed films" (correct me if this is a mischaracterization) and "someone with a similar name became UK Prime Minister" is not a biography. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 23:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How does it fail? See point 3. Muffled Pocketed 10:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience with PORNBIO deletion discussions, nobody can agree on the definitions of "featured", "notable", or "mainstream". Many participants just throw out "fails PORNBIO" or "passes PORNBIO" and expect the rest of us to divine exactly what they mean by that. clpo13(talk) 19:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Clpo13: Surely, at that point, someone should throw out CIR...?
  • Keep. It seems an inappropriate time to delete the article at point when she has achieved prominence. She has been featured in mainstream media, and this is likely to increase. There seems little point in deleting the article if it is likely to be recreated in the near future.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A minor flurry of "isn't it funny that this other person has the same name as our new Prime Minister?" coverage does not get a person over WP:GNG, if coverage of her accomplishing anything that would pass our notability criteria for her field of employment is lacking. Absent evidence of sufficient reliable source coverage of her work as a model and actress, dated at the time she was working as a model and actress, coverage dated this week just makes her a WP:BLP1E. This is not the first time in history that someone has gotten a day or two of media coverage for happening to have the same name as a more famous and notable person — but that's not a thing that makes the namesake permanently notable by itself. She needs career coverage dated before this week, but nobody's shown any. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: That suggests a statute of limitations; if you would be so kind? Muffled Pocketed 17:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Er, how does it do any such thing? Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like just a matter of phrasing, namely saying that an entry needs more than a week's coverage. If Teresa May actually had become PM this week, she would surely be notable even if we had no more than a week's coverage! So it's not the week's coverage that poses the problem for notability--but I think Bearcat's just using "this week" to stand in for "coverage only about the name similarity rather than independent notability." Correct me if I've misunderstood! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that's the point: the issue was and is the context in which the coverage is being given. As prime minister of a sovereign country, PM Theresa has an automatic pass of our subject-specific inclusion criteria for politicians — even if she hadn't already had preexisting notability prior to becoming PM, an article would still have become mandatory the moment her selection as PM had been announced, even if it was initially based on a single same-day source. But nothing claimed in Actress Teresa's article gives her an automatic pass on any inclusion criterion — because nothing in the article gives her an automatic in, her includability is entirely dependent on the depth, quality and context of the sourcing that can be added to support it. But that's not what's being shown: what's being shown is WP:BLP1E coverage in the context of "she has the same name as our PM", not coverage of her career. That's the issue. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we predict that media coverage is "likely to increase" and the article is "likely to be recreated in the near future"? See WP:CRYSTAL? PatGallacher (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we predict this is a flurry of coverage?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I share my name with a journalist at The Age and sometimes get his fan and hate mail through Gmail but unlike him I am *not* notable. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not created because of the similarity of name. This AfD is because of the similarity of name.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a BLP1E since this has happened before [5], [6], [7], [8]. Something similar was brought up in the last nomination: "Teresa actually appeared on GMTV with the MP Theresa May as a number of newspapers had run stories about the fact they had the same name." Meets point 3 of WP:PORNBIO and can be improved. Might not have been notable before her recent splurge of coverage but she probably is now. ZN3ukct (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Getting confused with a more notable person of the same name on more than one separate occasion does not constitute separate events for the purposes of escaping BLP1E; it's a single thing that lay dormant for a while and then revived again, not two discrete things. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are separate events. It happened more than once, before the other person was PM and after. BLP1E is not BLP notable for one thing. Her porn work was also talked about and there is a 16 year gap between the current sources, not just a few days or weeks. ZN3ukct (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't imagine this will be the deciding factor in the AFD, but: reporting that just reiterates something that was already reported does not constitute a separate event. For instance, merely reporting the anniversary of the Civil War is not a separate event from the Civil War. However, if there were substantial coverage not about the Civil War's events, but say, about Civil War reenactments marking the anniversary, that might well constitute a separately notable event. Teresa May has no such new, separately covered developments. Theresa May does have, but the coverage of Teresa may only restates the same information about her, which is currently too limited to fill even a single paragraph. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter did not exist 16 years ago [9]. I think that this can be considered a "modern reenactment". The article can still be improved, it doesn't cover the name mix-up. Some of these appearances [10] might be worth looking into, like "A Documentary on Teresa May". ZN3ukct (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, now we're getting somewhere! A few items in response to ZN3ukct:
1. If you see improvements that can be made, by all means, don't hold back. A more substantial entry would make this AfD so, so much clearer. (There is of course the risk that your work will end up deleted, but since you feel strongly that this could be a valid entry, I think showing what that would look like would go a lot farther in proving your case than abstraction.)
2. Great lead on sources. We still need to locate them on something not published by Teresa May (i.e. "independent", not her own website); a source that's "reliable" according to Wikipedia standards (secondary not primary, not tabloid, etc.); and, we need to show that they're "significant coverage" again by Wiki standards (more than trivial mentions), in order for the entry to be legit. I will do some searches on the titles listed there; I haven't had luck so far (for instance the only google search hits I get on "documentary about Teresa May" are from affiliated websites), so I urge you to look as well if you hope to prove that coverage meeting those standards does exist. Here's a slightly clearer version of the same list to work from: http://www.teresamaymanagement.co.uk/teresa_may_management_1.html
3. All the same. I continue to disagree about BLP1E. People noticing the name coincidence on Twitter simply isn't meaningfully different from people noticing the name coincidence via print newspapers. It certainly does not remotely compare to the difference between a civil war and staging a reenactment of a civil war!! (To pick literally just one of the relevant, profound differences: David W. Blight filled a 500-page book on civil war reenactments. We don't even have enough to fill a paragraph on the Twitter thing.) This is a bit similar to the suggestion I already made below, but if we had a page (maybe we do!) called something like Trending Twitter topics of 2016, then for sure it would merit a mention. But inclusion under a broader header is very, very different from the consensus standard for a standalone biography, let alone of a living person. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Event" is not synonymous with "incident". A process can also be an "event" — an election campaign, for instance, is a single event, and does not get an unelected candidate past WP:BLP1E just because they held five or six separate campaign "events" within the umbrella of the overall event. If a non-notable BLP1E incident occurs, dies down and then reemerges again months or years later, that doesn't make the original incident and the reemergence two distinct events if the substance of the two occurrences is the same non-encyclopedic distinction. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: More reliable sources are starting to come through, albeit mostly reporting the case of mistaken identity. There are stories about her at RT UK, The Huffington Post and The Daily Telegraph, for example, and even CBC in Canada have picked it up. I'm not convinced this glamour model was notable before her namesake became Prime Minister, but no doubt she will receive more media interest from now on. This is Paul (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She is and was notable enough for her own article, even before the woman with the same name became PM. Notability is not just made up of current facts. If it was Leif Garrett wouldn't warrant an article based on his status now. The fact remains this glamour model was just as big and well known as any other at the height of her career CliffordJones (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my keep vote. Had a IMDB profile too and they have not (yet) felt the need to add the confusion with the new PM as part of her bio. [11] Also her bio at what seems to somewhat a version of this site regarding adult entertainers states she has been a mainstream model [12], which she was for quite a considerable amount of time, so she had a level of fame well before the current mix up with the woman who now resides at number 10 Downing Street CliffordJones (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the WP:SENSATION articles began years ago, back when May was a back bencher. And yet this actresses' career never amounted to anything, even with that years-long flurry of tabloid photos of the 2 juxtapositioned. Half the people I know are on IMDB. Some of us because of movies filming in institutions where we work where they give walk on parts to the staff; some were talking heads in documentaries related to a field. Some acted a bit before moving to their present career. Being on IMDB as a very minor actor does not rate an article; to pass AP:ACTOR there have to be secomdary sources demonstrating notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per the policy based votes and discount vague handwaving and assertions. Spartaz Humbug! 18:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I regretfully vote to delete. I'll be quite candid: I'm happy this conversation has been largely respectful but given the tone I've seen taken in other AfDs when WP:PORNBIO comes up (often, is invoked along lines of WP:OTHERSTUFF), I do worry about how bias weighs on decisions to delete entries of people, particularly women, who've been involved in sex work. I'd be happy if I thought we could write a properly sourced article; that would make this easy for me to vote keep. But. I just do not see the sources here to write anything resembling a biography of this particular woman's life. That this entry has been around more than ten years, now gone through two AfDs (the present one being pretty darn exhaustive) and still no one has produced sources that go beyond naming some films (no sources that, say, review her performance in the films) and the amusement that she and the PM have similar names. Wikipedia does not have a deadline but nor does it run on hypothetical sources. If, say, reviews of her book come out, or someone writes a profile on her actual life, then terrific. But what we have right now is not the basis for an entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the following is an idea that I assume will please no one, but purely as an intellectual matter, this seems like the kind of thing that, were we handling a different kind of material, we'd just merge into a one-line notation on Theresa May's page, remarking that this minor media blitz happened. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to a single sentence somewhere on Theresa May's page as per User:Innisfree987. (I am quite frankly uncertain if I formally iVoted somewhere above.) Redirecting Teresa May (actress) in this way is a good answer to the problem of a minor porn actress notble only for recurring bouts of WP:SENSATION.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory Just on the ivote question, if I'm reading correctly, I thought the speedy keep was yours? No pressure, I don't want to suggest you strike it just because your more recent comment is closer to my thinking! But for clarity/so as to vote only once, it might be good to strike whichever one no longer represents your view. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite years of declarations that substantive coverage exists, the only sources remain IMDB credit lists. While a recent spate of coverage has occurred, even the small non-tabloid share of that coverage does little if anything more than report the subject's name and profession, with negligible actual biographical content. Clearly no sufficient basis established for a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per previous submissions and comments. Ref (chew)(do) 15:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is about Teresa May. To people with an IQ below room temperature and therefore to certain sectors of the press, the coincidence of names with Theresa May is the funniest thing that has ever happened, so there's been a sudden spate of coverage. It's not fair on either woman to risk any confusion between them and we need to ensure there's no ambiguity and as little scope for vandalism as possible. But there's real coverage about Teresa May the former adult starlet. It may be because of the coincidence of names but the GNG doesn't ask for the reason for the coverage. It's a simple objective test and Teresa May passes it. I've looked at some of the votes here and they make me wonder what will happen when Professor Dr Chew Shit Fun passes WP:PROF...—S Marshall T/C 21:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually GNG does pay attention to the reason and context for the coverage: there's this thing called WP:BLP1E that rules out brief blips of RS coverage of otherwise non-notable people, in inconsequential and non-encyclopedic contexts, as not getting that person over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E is a different thing from the GNG, Bearcat, and Teresa May without the h is not a WP:LPI. I expect you mean BIO1E (which, unlike BLP1E, is actually a subsection of one of our many notability pages), and ok, if we did strictly adhere to the guideline, you could argue that the article should be about the event rather than the person (presumably Teresa May's name). I put it to you that this would be following a rule off a cliff.—S Marshall T/C 18:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Teresa May (actress), she is just about notable, the fact that she has a similar name to someone else shouldn't come into consideration (apart from boosting her coverage and notability even more). Reading between the lines of some comments above it seems some editors do not want to 'besmirch' Theresa May with this article. That's not the way an encyclopaedia works. Mountaincirque 15:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concern for bias here, but I think it's inaccurate to say the name coincidence "boost[s] her coverage and notability even more," as if there were any other coverage. Can you point me to sources independent of this WP:BLP1E? Seriously, I'd be delighted to change my vote if someone can link to coverage of her sufficient to fill out an entry. I hereby commit to writing it up myself if someone can locate the sources that I've been unable to find. But a ton of energy has been expended here and none of it has yielded such sources. If they don't exist, the solution is to lobby media, scholars, etc. for better coverage of topics you find worthwhile, not to create either unsubstantiated or virtually empty entries. As you say: that's not how an encyclopedia works. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A highly noteable actress and glamour model. As editor CliffordJones rightly notes, for a while in the 90s she was more famous in GB than the good Prime Minister. Since most of the above votes were cast, editor WurmWoode has added new sources, further cementing the case for noteability. As she's highly noteable even without the recent coverage, we'd need to have an article on this woman even if she had a totally unique name. But just to note I see no validity to the BLP1E argument. Having the same name as a politican is not an "event". FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the "new sources" are all citations on the name kerfuffle. One was original research (link to subject's own tweet), so I deleted that, leaving three:
Still no independent material on anything else in Teresa May's career. And even within the name coverage, none of these pieces spends even two full sentences describing her career. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that User:Innisfree987 has a point. Editors keep describing her as notable, but we don't keep actors merely because they have a series of IMDB listings for minor roles in minor films. They need to have coverage in secondary sources. Editors arguing that she is notable need to bring sources (other than articles about the WP:SENSATION about the Prime Minister's name.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2016 (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/Teresa_May_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1090006545"