Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heroine of Hackney
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 merge to 2011 England riots. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Heroine of Hackney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
If this is supposed to be a biography, it breaches WP:BLP1E - we should not have articles about non-public figures who play minor roles in events. If this is supposed to be about the incident, it plainly fails to be notable as laid out in WP:EVENT. This is a flash in the pan news story. Our own article says that "She has reported feeling embarrassment at becoming an internet sensation" - we should not add to this. We are not a tabloid gossip sheet, this kind of topic is not suitable for us as an encyclopedia. Fences&Windows 02:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 02:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 02:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 02:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a summary to 2011 England riots#Reaction, somewhere. The Youtube clip got enough attention in reliable sources to warrant a mention somewhere, but as it's only notable because of its connection to a (highly) notable event, that's where it belongs. (Should she continue to get lasting coverage after the event, I'll reconsider.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (article creator) The article was created about the event and its aftermath, not as a biography: some relevant discussion regarding WP:BLP1E is on the talk page (Talk:Heroine of Hackney#Concise title, Talk:Heroine of Hackney#Biographical information). WP:BLPNAME was cautiously followed in the first instance. The motivation for the article's creation was that it is a notable interesting example of internet phenomena. The article includes information of encyclopedic value, e.g. She also contrasted people's relative poverty with expenditure for the Olympic Games – which I’ve not seen reported in the British press. It also includes background information and aftermath: WP:EFFECT should be noted. The statement “this kind of topic is not suitable for us as an encyclopedia” sounds like WP:BELONG, which is not a valid reason for deletion. I am unsure which parts of WP:EVENT it is believed are unmet. AFAICT the article satisfies WP:WEB and WP:GNG. I expect further content will be added, and will do so myself when I find the time. --Trevj (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the main problem with WP:EVENT is the duration of the coverage in reliable sources. The sources here span a period of a few days, and that's usually not enough for a news story to be considered notable in its own right. In general, minor news stories connected to major events should be mentioned in the article about the major event rather than a separate article, especially when it's primarily about an individual. Otherwise, these sorts of stories can become targets for nasty vandalism. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the duration of coverage, it's still ongoing (22 Aug, 23 Aug, 31 Aug, 3 Sep). Is there really a compelling need to delete this article (or merge it, per WP:ATD) now, rather than wait and see what comes out of the story (per WP:EFFECT)? The lady has been invited to the House of Commons and is releasing a charity single, so who knows what will happen or when? Deletion because an article is a potential target "for nasty vandalism" is not a policy that I've heard of. --Trevj (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the case for keeping an article is based on how notable the subject might become in the future, it's standard practice to delete/redirect/merge the article first and bring it back if and when this happens. In the case of merging and redirecting, it's very easy to bring the article back as and when there is a need to do so. I know people have different views on how much coverage is needed for a sub-event to get its own article, but there is a strong precedent from the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Richard Mannington Bowes, where a far more significant event ended up as a merge. (Should the charity single do well, of course, that will change everything.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure about delete/redirect/merge with respect to lasting effects of an event - the outcome of this article will be determined solely by consensus in this discussion, irrespective of examples cited elsewhere (particularly if there's no policy for this "standard practice"). Note that apparently "redirects [were] often temporary", although I don't know at what point or under what circumstances that guideline was amended. There are also a few examples of kept event pages at What is one event. Precedents elsewhere could be cited which demonstrate the opposite outcome to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Richard Mannington Bowes, so I don't see that as a valid argument. If (despite the arguments of notability put forward above) the consensus here is to merge, then I understand that the article could be easily resurrected in the future: this was recently achieved after a lot of content was lost from NTL (company). But one problem with merging content is that it would require paring down within the host article to ensure that UNDUE weight is not given there. This would necessitate omission of much of the encyclopedic content currently present in the article. --Trevj (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the case for keeping an article is based on how notable the subject might become in the future, it's standard practice to delete/redirect/merge the article first and bring it back if and when this happens. In the case of merging and redirecting, it's very easy to bring the article back as and when there is a need to do so. I know people have different views on how much coverage is needed for a sub-event to get its own article, but there is a strong precedent from the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Richard Mannington Bowes, where a far more significant event ended up as a merge. (Should the charity single do well, of course, that will change everything.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the duration of coverage, it's still ongoing (22 Aug, 23 Aug, 31 Aug, 3 Sep). Is there really a compelling need to delete this article (or merge it, per WP:ATD) now, rather than wait and see what comes out of the story (per WP:EFFECT)? The lady has been invited to the House of Commons and is releasing a charity single, so who knows what will happen or when? Deletion because an article is a potential target "for nasty vandalism" is not a policy that I've heard of. --Trevj (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the main problem with WP:EVENT is the duration of the coverage in reliable sources. The sources here span a period of a few days, and that's usually not enough for a news story to be considered notable in its own right. In general, minor news stories connected to major events should be mentioned in the article about the major event rather than a separate article, especially when it's primarily about an individual. Otherwise, these sorts of stories can become targets for nasty vandalism. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Yes, we need to have coverage of this somewhere but I don't think that there is enough encyclopaedic information here to sustain an article. Most (but not all) of the last section feels like a collection of comments, some noteworthy some not, said about her/her speech interspersed with things that might be relevant in a biography (e.g. criminal conviction) but which are not relevant to this video/event. If a charity single is released (at this point it's just an aspiration, not even a plan) and receives significant coverage then a bio article or an article about the video and the single (depending on whether the single's content is relevant) may be called for. Per WP:CRYSTAL we can only go by what the current facts are, not what they might be, and currently they point towards a merge with an article about the riots. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - part of a Wikipedia series about to the 2011 England riots, and well-referenced, deserves a standalone article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2011 (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.