Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Wilson

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 (non-admin closure) --MPerel 01:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emma Wilson

Emma Wilson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Not notable and plagued by additions of inappropriate personal details. Deletion requested by the subject. Fred Talk 13:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. An academic with only five published papers in 10 years? She needs to pull her finger out ... (sorry, bad joke that backfired). Seriously, notability not established. Wikipedia is beyond listing every university reader. WWGB (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing here but daughter of a notable author. Fred Talk 13:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Delete. Non notable, and I understand she has personally requested the article to be removed. Poor thing, what has she done to deserve crass comments like WWGB's above? --woggly (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, WWGB is out of line. I would like to here the magic words OTRS or the like, though, as there's no evidence she's posted to the article or anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Five books rather than five published papers. The article's references include three reviews for Cinema's Missing Children, so I think notability as an author is established. --Eastmain (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep She is the daughter of so-and-so? That's an inappropriate personal detail? The personal details in any version of this article I can see are the level of "Who's who" and well below any real biography. I assume the subject requested by OTRS to have it removed? All I see on the page is your everyday vandal, messing with URLs. She's head of a department, has five books, clearly makes notability requirements.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep She is a published author in her own right, not simply the daughter of one. Plenty of RS here LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The fact that her mother is Jacqueline Wilson is little more than trivia in this article. Her notability is established as a reader at the University of Cambridge, and through being an academic with published works. Passes WP:BIO. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep She is an established secondary writer on French literature and film whose work has been recognised to be of enough value to award her a readership at Cambridge.Halfleft9843759 (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with what's written above: she's an author and should be treated as such. By the way, there's nothing wrong with mentioning her parents; any serious biography, if possible, would at least mention the parents of any person listed. Nyttend (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • comment -- general issue here about BLP policy: does an article which is borderline for notability become more notable because of the biographical fact of the prominence of the subject's mother? OR, does that fact raise the bar for notability, because of a duty of care to to protect LPs from unwarranted intrusion? --mervyn (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If we start paying attention to the [preferenes of notable academics we will end up with articles from preferentially those with a certain degree of vanity self-importance-- but the modest ones are equally notable. DGG (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I didn't see anything derogatory in the article. I think DGG makes a good point about notable academics. Could those who claim to have knowledge of her request to be delisted fill us in on whether there is a good reason for this request? Has there been a stalker? If those who say she requested deletion can't confirm the assertion, and the reasons, I'll change to "Keep". Geo Swan (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2008 (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.