Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica Roe
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. John254 00:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Erica Roe
Delete. Contested prod. Subject streaked at a rugby match in 1982. And that's it really. Looking at the other articles in the streakers category, all of them were notable for other reasons apart from streaking. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. While I was all set to !vote "Delete" based on WP:BIO and its note about single-event fame, my google check seems to suggest that there is an unusual level of notability attached to Roe's streaking. Accordingly, I've revamped the article somewhat with inline citations. Conversation about her seems to be ongoing, with articles as recently as this year listing her among the best known streakers of all time. I did not cite because of redundancy additional support for her notability at iafrica and the independent. Roe also seems to have been featured in a couple of television shows and to have translated (?) a book on the topic. Given her evident notability, if the article itself is not kept, I believe it should redirect to Streaking#Streaking_in_Sports (with perhaps a small expansion of the sentence about her there, such as full date). The name seems like a plausible search term to me, even if it is determined that the person does not need an individual bio, perhaps because, as BLP says, "Cover the event, not the person". (Although I'll note that covering the person would have eliminated this event. :D) --Moonriddengirl 14:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but the subject appears to be notable. Her actions were cited twice by the BBC and also in other publications. That means that she is covered (no pun intended) by reliable sources. She is not notable for anything else other than this event. But evidently it was a pretty big deal if people are still talking about it 25 years after it happened. Kudos to Moonriddengirl for sourcing the article. --Cyrus Andiron 16:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- comment Thanks. :) I was quite surprised how much there was out there. --Moonriddengirl 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. I was surprised to see this prodded, although there were a few speedy-deletable articles linked to the book shop mentioned in the article, and I'm surprised to see this AfD'd. Roe is the most famous streaker in British sporting history, and was nationally famous at the time (and still a recognizable name today) due to both TV and newspaper coverage. What's more, the assertion of notability is backed up by references. Roe is single-handedly responsible for what a highly-respected serious newspaper considers one of the top 100 most memorable sporting moments. A decision to keep seems to me a straightforward one.--Michig 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- weak keep it seems that enough news sources noticed this incident deeming it somewhat notable, however strange it seems.Iamchrisryan 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. So it will never become a featured article, who cares. Burntsauce 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. Corvus cornix 22:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep One of the most notable incidents of its kind. Who can remember the score? However, many people remember Erica Roe. The incident is still talked and written about 20+ years later as this google archive search indicates[1]. --Malcolmxl5 22:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Additional comment The subject has "demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources." per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 22:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Very notorious. The Wikipedia article has been cited in a major UK newspaper Colonel Warden 22:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't !vote speedy keep unless you feel that nomination was made in bad faith. Corvus cornix 22:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Which guidelines is that from, CC? --Malcolmxl5 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Corvus cornix 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cf. snowball keep, which Colonel Warden might have meant. Joe 23:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not fussy how it's done but the AFD tag should be removed immediately as this is an obvious Keep and keeping the discussion open is a time-waster. Note that the list of reasons for Speedys is not exhaustive. Colonel Warden 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cf. snowball keep, which Colonel Warden might have meant. Joe 23:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, CC. --Malcolmxl5 23:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. There are little gems like that squirrelled away all over the place. :) Corvus cornix 23:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Corvus cornix 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Which guidelines is that from, CC? --Malcolmxl5 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep The most famous streaker ever, in Britain anyway, and an incident which caused massive and lasting press interest. Seeking to have it deleted under WP:BLP1E seems an attempt at surrealist humour. Nick mallory 00:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Nick M (with whom I had an edit conflict - followed by a "database locked" message. sigh.). Not just a streaker (it would be a definite deletion candidate in that case), but possibly the world's most famous streaker - I live at the other end of the planet and I've heard of her. One event-notability, maybe - but the degree of notoriety/fame as a result is sufficient for this one to be a keeper, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Lots of media coverage, remains a well-known name in the UK. Espresso Addict 07:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- keep. Can't stand the woman and I'm fed up of hearing about her, but she is, unfortunately notable. Corvus Cornix is wrong to cite WP:BLP1E as although all the coverage stems from that one event they are not all from that one event. They all reference that for this is what she is famous for; but because of that she has often been quoted by the media, has appeared in game shows and is considered a d-list celebrity. B1atv 07:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply to keeps. Some good arguments, and the article has been improved slightly, but I'm still arguing for delete. Yes she should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but not in her own article. At best this is a redirect and merge to Streaking. Yes she is mentioned in the press, but rarely in an article actually about her. It's either an article about streaking which she is briefly mentioned in, or a "craziest moments in sport" article which, again, she is mentioned fleetingly in. And the coverage isn't that widespread. 256 unique Google hits for "erica roe" streaker, 159 for "erica roe" streak and 119 for "erica roe" streaking. And only 274 for plain old"Erica Roe", and this includes other Erica Roes. Not exactly widespread. Plus a lot of these are trivial. If she had gone on to be a minor celebrity or some kind of authority on streaking yes, but she is a sweet potato farmer in Portugal. One mildly notable event does not equal an encyclopedia article. Stu ’Bout ye! 07:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A lot of people seem to be voting on the basis that they have heard of her. Having heard of someone, and them being sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia are two different things. Stu ’Bout ye! 20:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'd never heard of her before I sat down to this AfD. :) In terms of WP:BIO, she has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The depth is not substantial; however, she does have "multiple independent sources". Looking at the specific examples, it is true that she is known in the context of a particular event, however, she has "Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources" and "Widespread coverage over time in the media". WP:BLP in expanding the single-event exclusion says, "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." I think given her television appearances and interviews and the fact that this single event apparently launched a short-lived modeling career, we can judge that she is not "low profile". She may not be strongly notable, but I believe (as I said above) that she is notable enough to sustain the article about her. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. She is mentioned in reliable, secondary sources, but those articles aren't about her, but the subject in general. Most have a couple of sentences on her. And I can't see how just over 200 Google hits is widespread coverage, especially when most are trivial and the reliable sources aren't about her specifically. On the television appearances, are we sure she actually appeared on 80's Mania and After They Were Famous? I'm not so sure, they sound like clip shows to me, where they would have just showed her streaking, rather than her actually appearing on the show. On her modelling career, you make an excellent point, it was short lived and she only made eight grand from it. Again, she's certainly notable enough to be mentioned in the streaking article, but doesn't deserve her own. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'll grant that she's not Lady Godiva. :) But to me widespread is less about the # of google hits and more about the breadth of press coverage. The sources currently in the article span at least 7 years (a couple didn't have publication dates). We've got the BBC, three different newspapers & Manchester Confidential which I can't precisely pin down. :) As I mentioned above, there was another Independent article and even coverage out of Africa which I didn't incorporate because of redundancy. I don't interpret "widespread coverage" as hundreds of hits, but as coverage across several separate reliable sources. According to the notability guidelines, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content". In this case, none is--except perhaps on the tv show. (I didn't add that myself for precisely the reason you mention; I don't personally know how extensive her involvement was. For a similar reason, I didn't add her book credit. Translated? What? :)) Her coverage is more substantial in some of the sources than others (certainly in the case of her personal interview), but I do not personally perceive it as trivial. --Moonriddengirl 11:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. "After They Were Famous" was not a 'clip show' - it featured documentaries on people who were more famous in the past to see what they're doing these days. If I remember correctly (I wasn't an avid watcher of the programme), each subject was covered for about 10 minutes in total. It was also on a national terrestrial channel. It's unlikely that anyone who doesn't merit an article here would have been sufficiently famous to have a programme about them broadcast nationally at 10 o'clock at night.--Michig 11:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. She is mentioned in reliable, secondary sources, but those articles aren't about her, but the subject in general. Most have a couple of sentences on her. And I can't see how just over 200 Google hits is widespread coverage, especially when most are trivial and the reliable sources aren't about her specifically. On the television appearances, are we sure she actually appeared on 80's Mania and After They Were Famous? I'm not so sure, they sound like clip shows to me, where they would have just showed her streaking, rather than her actually appearing on the show. On her modelling career, you make an excellent point, it was short lived and she only made eight grand from it. Again, she's certainly notable enough to be mentioned in the streaking article, but doesn't deserve her own. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Passing WP:BIO is sufficient for inclusion, and Erica Roe passes WP:BIO. Surely it's as simple as that?--Michig 20:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'd never heard of her before I sat down to this AfD. :) In terms of WP:BIO, she has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The depth is not substantial; however, she does have "multiple independent sources". Looking at the specific examples, it is true that she is known in the context of a particular event, however, she has "Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources" and "Widespread coverage over time in the media". WP:BLP in expanding the single-event exclusion says, "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." I think given her television appearances and interviews and the fact that this single event apparently launched a short-lived modeling career, we can judge that she is not "low profile". She may not be strongly notable, but I believe (as I said above) that she is notable enough to sustain the article about her. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A lot of people seem to be voting on the basis that they have heard of her. Having heard of someone, and them being sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia are two different things. Stu ’Bout ye! 20:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply to keeps. Some good arguments, and the article has been improved slightly, but I'm still arguing for delete. Yes she should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but not in her own article. At best this is a redirect and merge to Streaking. Yes she is mentioned in the press, but rarely in an article actually about her. It's either an article about streaking which she is briefly mentioned in, or a "craziest moments in sport" article which, again, she is mentioned fleetingly in. And the coverage isn't that widespread. 256 unique Google hits for "erica roe" streaker, 159 for "erica roe" streak and 119 for "erica roe" streaking. And only 274 for plain old"Erica Roe", and this includes other Erica Roes. Not exactly widespread. Plus a lot of these are trivial. If she had gone on to be a minor celebrity or some kind of authority on streaking yes, but she is a sweet potato farmer in Portugal. One mildly notable event does not equal an encyclopedia article. Stu ’Bout ye! 07:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I wasn't even born when she streaked and I know who she is. She also seems to get interviewed every time there's a tv programme/newspaper article about streaking, so I think that, while her notability stems from the streak, she must have something else about her too. Red Fiona 16:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. She became a considerable public figure following the streaking and an archetype of 'the streaker'. Sam Blacketer 11:49, 5 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.
