Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Hopkins

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Hopkins

Katie Hopkins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:NOTE. The subject is not notable outside The Apprentice (UK),a reality television show. She has been featured in the press, but so do all reality tv stars. Apart from the content on the show, the article just contains tabloid rubbish. Anything noteworthy should be merged with The Apprentice.Legalbeaver 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Impossibly strong keep (and I'm not even the article's creator!): it's notable in that it's received coverage by independent sources.--Rambutan (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It does not matter how many independent sources are used. You can get tabloid sources for every reality television participant. That does not mean they should all have an article on Wiki.Legalbeaver 20:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • It satisfies WP:NOTE by its variety of sources, so that's fine.--Rambutan (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, firstly-she only left The Apprentice little over a month ago. Does not fail ANY of these WP:NOTE guidlines, and passes the guidlines at WP:BIO. Fair play if the article was a un-noteable and un-sourced stub, but this article is a noteable, fully-sourced, B-class article. Dalejenkins 19:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • True, the article is not a stub, but that doesnt mean that it contains anything that makes Katie Hopkins worthy of an article on Wiki. It should be summarised and merged to List of The Apprentice candidates (UK). Why should it make any difference that she left The Apprentice "little over a month ago"? The article simply should not have been created in the first place. She is not a notable business person, she currently has no media career to speak of, she is purely famous for being in a reality tv show, thus she is not notable enough for her own page.Legalbeaver 20:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You're wrong. Your claim for nominating was "she hasn't done anything since The Apprentice", she's only been out of it a month. Give the girl a chance-did you expect her to become a huge TV presenter or actress in this short space of time? According to WP:BIO, Reality TV contestants (however long they stay in, however little an impact after their departure), may still have their own articles. Dalejenkins 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, like all reality contestants who get AfDed, why can't this one go the same way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallicash (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP. Is Wikipedia short of space. 99% of the info on the site is trivial. It is interesting and informs pub discussions but little of it is likely to change the world. It is only Wikipedia so get a life and don't be so precious.--MJB 19:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not entirely clear what your vote is.--Rambutan (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, easily passes WP:BIO as a very well-sourced B-class article on a highly notable person. Article could use a bit of tidying and trimming, but the number of sources alone is enough to have me convinced that she's a person of note. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Recreate if subject does something notable outside of The Apprentice. Having an affair with a married man is not notable on its own.Candyfan 19:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, this user appears to be on an ant-Apprentice rampage recently. Having threatened to put this article up for AfD for some months, he now has and has also opposed The Apprentice (UK)'s FA promotion for no apparent reason. I detect a Bad Faith Nomination. Dalejenkins 21:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I presume this is directed at me. Please try to keep your comments on topic and not about me. I have expressed concern about the notability of the article in the past, as have other editors (which can be seen here). I am perfectly within my rights to nominate the article for deletion and my reasons for opposing The Apprentice (UK)'s FA are legit and unrelated. It's fine that you disagree with me, but it is wrong to suggest "bad faith". Please try not to take it personally.Legalbeaver 21:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't understand how a short term appearance on one tv show is notable to have your life story in an encyclopedia. It reads like a local gossip magazine article as oppose to a serious biography about a serious individual. NobutoraTakeda 21:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [1]
    • Comment: This appears to be an account created for the sole purpose of vote stacking. Burntsauce 18:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, then suerly the page should be placed on {{cleanup}}? Dalejenkins 21:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • N Delete being one of hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have been on a single reality television show is not "significant coverage". VanTucky (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Immediate Keep per all of Dalejenkin's comments. Please don't quote WP:CRAP, but if you look at articles like Brandon Rogers (singer) you'll see how worthy this article is. Bravedog 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per VanTucky and NobutoraTakeda's comments. --Onceonthisisland 22:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep I don't watch the programme, but I heard about her. Wikipedia exists to provide reference material on things that people will wish to look up. Æthelwold 23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Certainly it passes notability, looks very well maintained and sourced as well.--JForget 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Question Specifically, what aspect of WP:NOTE does this article fall foul of? --Dweller 08:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Moreover, it ought to be remembered that WP:NOTE is a guideline, not a policy, and as such allows an element of flexibility. The Rambling Man 08:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Inappropriate, unexplained nomination. Subject clearly passes WP:BIO. Comments about "tabloid rubbish" reveals much about the nom - I spotted refs from The Times, The Guardian and BBC Online, none of which could be considered "tabloid rubbish". This woman is highly notable in the UK right now, with an ability to make headlines that far exceeds your run-of-the-mill reality TV contestant, including, ironically, either of the actual finalists of the show. --Dweller 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is a thoroughly researched and documented article that provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. Alansohn 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because she hasnt done anything notable outside her appearance on a reality show. Corpx 17:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • How can you compare inventors to reality show participants? Corpx 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like it or not, and apparently for many people WP:IDONTLIKEIT is being applied, the subject does meet WP:BIO and notability guidelines, and the article is more than sufficiently referenced to keep around. Burntsauce 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to The Apprentice (UK Series Three). I watched the series, and I have now, by reading this article, become aware of all the tabloid stories written about her. I have also been able to read the names of her children. This is not encyclopedia content. There may be people who want to read this sort of stuff, but why can't they read it in tabloid newspapers, and not in Wikipedia? Carcharoth 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. If she's not notable, I don't know who is. If this is not a B bio article, I don't know what one is. All those reality shows are, IMHO, Brain Candy, but WP has both high and low culture. I agree especially with comments by Alansohn, Burntsauce, Dweller, Bravedog, Dalejenkins, Æthelwold, and Jforgot. Bearian 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • By your standards every single reality television star could have their own page on wikipedia. Press material is easy to find on all reality television stars, but they are only notabe if they go on to sustain a media career. The subject has not.Legalbeaver 02:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Highly referenced and thorough article and well within notability. Seaserpent85 23:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Granted, that the article does need some tidying and trimming, but there is no getting away from the fact that it is a B class article. There is a current total of 76 sources from a range of documents, newspaper, tabloid and BBC News articles, which are very well organised and complete with every retrieval date. This should not be deleted per WP:BIO as "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources". I can see the reasoning for this nomination, but I think that she is just about notable enough for the article to be kept on Wikipedia, and if these rumours of an appearance on another reality show prove true, then the article will have to be re-created anyway. Eagle Owl 13:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are 6 or 7 other articles on people from past series of the apprentice. If they are notable, so is Katy. In fact there are hundreds of Wiki articles about people who have featured on reality TV. The apprentice is one of the most notable UK reality shows, and she is perhaps the most notable person from the recent series, so again she must be notable enough to keep. Willy turner 17:00, 19 July 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.