Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridget Mary Nolan
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, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish a presumption of notability for this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and there is insufficient evidence of a consensus to override this presumption. John254 02:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bridget Mary Nolan
I'm nominating a group of long-standing, well-sourced articles about notorious sex offenders for deletion. The reason is notability - I just don't think these folks are all that notorious anymore. They are scandalous news stories that got a lot of attention at the time but have by and large faded from public memory, except here. They are marginal cases - all get lots of google hits, and consensus may go either way. It's possible that were they deleted, true-crime fans or age-of-consent advocates would rapidly recreate them. But my view is that these articles just don't add a lot of informational value to the encyclopedia. Curious to see which way consensus will go. Dybryd 03:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think it's notable .. but let's see the outcome Elmao 07:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Notability is not temporary. Chris 07:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I agree! That's why I nominated her!
- Dybryd 08:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, borderline massive WP:POINT nomination. I say borderline because I believe that Dybryd, in an experimental way, is working in good faith. Burntsauce 17:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Notability is not temporary, but people may be confused between notability and press coverage. Relevant points from WP:N:
- This concept [notability] is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".
- A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- "Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined.[1] (emphasis added)
- "Notability is not temporary. Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events.[10] In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." (emphasis added)
- --lquilter 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - the article states that it is "one of a number of cases" -- why not have a single article that surveys the cases and notes any trends that have been discussed in the media? Surely that would actually be informative. Unlike simply having multiple such articles giving an impression of sensationalism, having one article covering the issue could in fact discuss sensationalism, moral panics, increase in rates of abuse versus rates of reporting, and other relative topics to the trend (if there is one). --lquilter 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.84.10 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2007 (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.
