Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Slade

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 14:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melanie Slade

I do not believe that she is notible enough to warrant her own article. The information in this article should perhaps be included in Theo Walcott's article or the Wags article. I appreciate that she has been in the British media a number of times over the past month but with the end of England's World Cup campaign press coverage will fizzle out. I don't have a problem with her having an article if her personal achievement and notability warrant it at a later stage. Lynnathon 09:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Wikipedia is not a scrapbook for paparazzi clippings. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  11:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia certainly isn't a scrapbook, but it is an encyclopaedia. Melanie Slade is receiving a lot of attention in the media at the moment; it would look very strange to the average internet user if WP didn't have an article. Robwingfield ^(talk) 13:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an attempt at an encyclopedia. This means that much of the trivial stories in the mainstream media - even ones which received much coverage - are not suitable for Wikipedia. It would look very strange if Wikipedia was filled with the trash stories of the tabloids, or indeed, of the higher end media tooBwithh 20:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, or merge into Wags. 15-minutes-of-fame-style tabloid articles and getting her breasts out in a tabloid is not the same as encyclopedic notability. I'd prefer to merge into a list on the Wags page, but quite happy with delete too. Non-encyclopedic Teencruft/Wankcruft, Wikipedia is not a fansite nor a list of fansites. I question the notability of fellow unter-celebrity Coleen McLoughlin too. — Estarriol ^talk 13:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment At first glance, it looks as if Coleen has done more to establish her own notability seperate from Wayne Rooney. --DarkAudit 16:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, that does admittedly appear to be true. — Estarriol ^talk 16:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Footballer's girlfriend and page 3 girl != notability. If Walcott is a bust, then she'll be quickly forgotten. --DarkAudit 16:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep has become famous due to link but I'd argue is actually more famous than Theo - maybe his article should be merged into hers? Publicity appearances, being using for Race for Life publicity, etc. She is a regular in the media (including photo in The Guardian last week) - agree with Robwingfield. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robertsteadman (talk • contribs).

• Comment Fame is not the deciding criterion for inclusion - encyclopedic notability is. They are not synonyms (fortunately), and levels and durations of fame are strongly relative. — Estarriol ^talk 16:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" is from WP:BIO and fits this article perfectly. Robertsteadman 16:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Newsworthy events" is where it falls down. The contents of tabloids are not always "newsworthy"; they thrive on making non-newsworthy events seem as if they were, and in theory should be ashamed for doing so, although of course they have no shame. "Theo Walcott on England football team" is newsworthy, "he has a girlfriend who has a car with a custom number plate and is doing some A-levels and some charity work" isn't. No offense meant to the authors, but nothing in her article is newsworthy. — Estarriol ^talk 17:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply - that's very judgemental of you. And doing some charity work is an understatement - being used by one of the biggest UK charities for one of its biggest events to help promote it is newsworthy in itself, let alone the Theo stuff, the modelling, etc. It's not up to us to judge the quality of what is making the news, merely report what is being written about. Melanie Slade is newsworthy - its that simple. Robertsteadman 17:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• We are not reporters, we are encyclopedia builders, and I think that is exactly our job - to sift what is noteworthy out of the rest. We are not hack reporters that hide behind the journalistic code to justify tabloidism. This lady, with all due respect to her, has not yet done anything which is noteworthy enough to warrant her own article - a section in Theo's article or the WAGs article is probably all that is justified. And yes, that's judgemental - intentionally so, as we are here explicitly to judge the matter. But I think our relative positions are clear on this one by now. — Estarriol ^talk 18:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 'Actively involved' leaves much to interpretation. I could say I was 'actively involved' in the Greater Clarksburg 10K (major race that attracts world-class runners), even though all I did was run in it twice. --DarkAudit 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not Hello!. Much mainstream news coverage is too trivial or not sufficiently encyclopedically noteworthy to be included in Wikipedia. This falls way below the mark. Bwithh 20:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - it is not up to us to judge what is trivial - much (most?) of WP could be considered trivial by others - however, someone recieving signioficant coverage in natonal newspapers is noteworthy and should be included. There seems to be a lot of snobbery about this and that is very sad. Sure, she hasn't found a cure for cancer or broken a world record but she is extremely newsworthy and WP should reflect that she is a known entity in the UK. She also has a number of fan sites for her and sites following her every move. Please stop the snobbery.Robertsteadman 06:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a discussion between editors of a fantastic encyclopedia where each person is entitled to their opinion. It is not right for a fellow editor to throw insulting comments regarding other's views. I appreciate that you consider the article to be worthy of being kept but that is your opinion, I don't think that snobbery has anything to do with it. Please retract you last comment. Lynnathon 07:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to a single sentence on Walcott's page. Being in the newspapers is not the same as being newsworthy. -- GWO
• Merge a considerably cut down version to Walcott's page per GWO. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per GWO. David | Talk 11:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Theo Walcott and WAGs as necessary. Melanie Slade hasn't achieved notability. --A bit iffy 08:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Walcott or retain. The WAGs article is mainly about the emergence and use of the word; not tittle-tattle (which may nevertheless be interesting) about individuals. The article needs some tidying and proper citations, but I can't see the advantage in simply deleting it. A pity that the article doesn't include the wonderful Walcott comment in the Times that Coleen McC probably thinks an A-level is the first floor of Top Shop. --IXIA 16:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was on the line about voting to merge with Walcott, but a google news search (offering 98 results, for the record) has her just signing a TV deal.[1] A regular google search has about 322,000, which I think is a not paltry number.[2] A look at the history shows that over 10 distinct signed in users have edited the page, not counting adding the deletion tags.[3] To me, these numbers indicate that Melanie is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. I would also like to strongly oppose a WAG merge. I see the WAGs article eventually growing into a truthiness or chav type one. The article is about the word, its history, its growth, and its spin-offs. Turning it into a collection of the various WAGs would, I think, be a great detriment to the article. If this does get merged, please put it in with Theo, not with WAGs. Vickser 18:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm now for KEEP, not merge. I've just checked the Walcott article and it is a serious one about the footballer himself. Which leads me to think that MS is probably best left where it is. It should be improved, but nothing to be gained by deleting and Wikipedia is well placed to cover this sort of person.--IXIA 18:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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.