Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Coghlan

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The result was nomination withdrawn. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monica Coghlan

This article fails WP:BIO, and its content is generally duplicated in the Jeffrey Archer article. Redirect to that article as a potential search term. Erechtheus 21:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) In light of the outstanding work of AnonEMouse, I withdraw this AfD. Erechtheus 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Yomangani 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - nice work, want to do the same on the couple of hundred other articles up for deletion? Yomangani 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• I did a few times before - couple of hundred seems a bit much, though. :-) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I greatly expanded the article, hopefully enough to save it. While she became famous via Archer's case, she did become famous enough for newspapers to write about her, rather than just him. She became somewhat notable as an unapologetic prostitute. Meanwhile, Archer's article is quite long, and covers a lot more than the scandal, because he did write several well selling books, and had a notable career before and after the scandal. So there is now more interesting, verifiable information here than can be effectively merged to Archer's article. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Excellent work. I have no reservations about withdrawing this AfD now. Perhaps there wouldn't have been an AfD at all if others critical of it were willing to put in this sort of work. Erechtheus 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps there wouldnt have been an AfD at all if it weren't for a trigger happy contributor with a Monica complex.Cardigan3000 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Whoah, whoah, please. If the article couldn't have been expanded from the 4 sentences it was at the start of this process, deleting or merging it back would have a perfectly appropriate move, and frankly, even expanded, this article will never be a serious rival to the one on Albert Einstein ... or even Jeffrey Archer. Please, assume good faith, no personal attacks. Everyone did what they were supposed to, and this is turning out well. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • . The point here is fairly obvious i would have thought, someone's notability is not based on the quality of the wikipedia article about them, nominating articles for deletion should not be used as a spur for upgrading current unsatisfactory articles but for removing inappropriate articles. There was, of course, nothing to stop either Yomangani or Erechtheus from working on the article themselves.Cardigan3000 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • True, but the nomination wasn't just for WP:BIO and since the content was a)a stub, b)duplicated, c)original research and d)didn't establish notability (the onus is on the editor here), I think a delete was in order. Since it is now neither a), b), or c) and notability is established by multiple references I changed my opinion. You could have course, also edited it yourself. Yomangani 17:02, 1 August 2006
        • Why don't you just go through the whole of wikipedia deleting all stubs? Duplicated , no there was no mention of her death in the Archer account in fact she only gets one mention. Original research? again , no all the info was easily verifiable. Notability is established by her relationship to Archer. Once again , just because you have never heard of her doesnt mean she is not notable.Cardigan3000 18:21, 1 August 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.