Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha Collins

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. Delete and Redirect to Mark Speight. She was not notable, her death was a notable fact in the life of already notable Mark Speight though. This close is obviously not a votecount... Fram (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natasha Collins

Natasha Collins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A short biographical article about a recently deceased person, which was originally nominated for speedy deletion. I really have no opinion on this, but feel that the wider view of the community should be gauged before a decision on whether or not to delete is made Egdirf (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep undeniably notable for her life if not her death. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Her notability is easily deniable. See WP:BIO1E - people known only for one event. The only references here relate to her death; there's no evidence presented of notability outside of it. TheBilly (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That's an argument for renaming the article and refocusing the topic to "Death of Natasha Collins", not deleting it outright. Much of the content of this article would be usable for either topic. John254 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mark Speight, I don't see much notability asserted here by herself, IMDb only lists 2 shows. -- lucasbfr talk 12:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Her notability is as a BBC TV presenter, which isn't really IMDB's area. --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Ow ok, every time I check a TV Host on imdb, I get plenty of hits for each show they presented. Mmm, "Natasha Collins" bbc -death -police in google shows no significant English results. I don't see significant coverage. -- lucasbfr talk 13:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Same as Dweller. --Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Being the girlfriend of someone notable does not transfer notability. However, it would be very useful to have a redirect pointing to the section about her in Mark Speight's article TheBilly (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I feel she was an independent person and her death may have nothing to do with her boyfriend, she was a presenter of note and people will look her up, admittedly largely because of her untimely demise. Kateab (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • But her notability isn't established. I don't thik it's unlikely she's notable if she was an "actor and BBC presenter", but if nobody is going to prove it then the article deserves deletion. This shouldn't be a straw poll about whether we feel sorry for dead people; AfD debates are about the merits of articles based on the Wikipedia guidelines, and currently the article fails them TheBilly (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep She had her own individual career separate to that of Mark Speight. This entitles her to the right to her own article. It's like saying if the Queen Elizabeth died, we'd put her onto the Duke of Edinburgh's page. CycloneNimrod (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • She had a career so that entitles her to her own article? That covers every worker in the world ... WWGB (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete She had her own individual career - which wasn't notable enough to get her a page before she passed on. --EndlessDan 13:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Speight's article. She's only really notable for being some guy's dead girlfriend. Lugnuts (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Endlessdan --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • She wasn't a BBC presenter (the closest she got was being an actress on a children's puzzle programme nine years ago) and the fact that people are discussing her as if she was, and this not even being questioned until now, suggests rather strongly to me that nobody knows who she was, she isn't notable in the Wikipedia sense and the article should therefore be deleted. But hey, it's your own stupid fault for having such restrictive rules on notability in the first place. - Q4
  • Keep: I believe this entry meets notability requirements. Agree with Dweller on this one. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Speight's article. Chris (クリス) (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - on the basis that she just about reaches notability (you could easily argue it the other way), but more importantly that we don't know yet about the circumstances or causes of her death, and hence redirecting to Speight sets a legally conclusive precedent which is highly liebelous for the Wiki foundation. If we delete now, it will only get recreated by a Anon. I'd like to see this one re-debated in at least two weeks if not four, when further details will be confirmed by reliable Media and Police sources. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dweller - Brochco (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment As the story only broke this morning, it is unlikely that a Google search would throw up much just now. Surely the test of her notability will be if there is an obituary in tomorrow's Times. Brochco (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
      • In fact this is the contrary, 100% of the google hits are related to her death. -- lucasbfr talk 17:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
        • So they are. My apologies for that. I actually considered creating this article myself when the story first broke, but couldn't find much about her at that stage, so decided I wouldn't. My comments really relate to that. I think it should be kept though - for the time being at least and until further details become available. Brochco (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
          • There isn't an obituary, although her death is reported on page 5. I'd still like to see this article kept though, for the reasons I stated above. Brochco (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - had not been notable before her death, only reason of notability is because her death involves a children's TV presenter and his subsequent arrest, which will explain why this is seen to be as scandalous. The bottom line to this is I want to point out that this site is not IMDB (she has her own profile, so why not contribute there instead). Willirennen (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As per most of the above. Tilefish (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (Anon IP) But hold off on the adding of pointless speculation until the facts are known, rather than copy & paste from BBC news just for the sake of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.84.157 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (Anon IP) Who is she? A minor actress, that's it. Just because she's dead, it doesn't make her famous. Just as it's inappropriate to list dead animals, no matter how 'famous' they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.50.159 (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no significant coverage, as per Lucasbfr. Only became notable after death, hence the creation of the page today. Most sources that relate to her previous history are from the current news stories, therefore only notable for this event. Rt. 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NOTABILITY, consistent with the conclusions reached here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander. That's the Wikipedia line, but as I've said before - "I believe that it's a depressing prospect that sensation lovers are leading an encyclopedia by the nose. Allowing the media to determine what is and isn't notable is a bad joke.... I bet we wouldn't be having this arguement if it was an ugly middle aged man who had been murdered. I think that WP needs to establish a specific guideline - I've no idea how to go about it.". Topically there's another similar debate going on here, it would be interesting to see how consistent the WP procedures are over all the similar instances. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Hey, I don't regard myself as a sensation hunter. I just look for subjects to create articles about is all. Although I didn't create this one, I thought about it - as I would have done had it been a middle aged man. Brochco (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, I was very surprised there wasn't already an article about her, I recognise her face very well, though that is perhaps because I'm too often awake at 5am watching see it saw it reruns (and that program apparently doesnt have a page either, so clearly thats not a notability provider). The people who are voting delete do have policy on side. However, if it is deleted, it will definitely, as someone said, be recreated within hours. Which would mean that if it were to be deleted it would need to be salted, which I disagree with as an option at this juncture because more developments might change the situation or blah blah and we shouldnt have to, in that case, rely on busy admins to care, because they don't always. Plus, there's nothing wrong with giving it a couple of days til the attention dies down and the deletion can be cleaner. So weak keep. Jdcooper (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment People might want to keep an eye on the article as the afd notice had been removed. Hiding T 19:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per "WP:NOTABILITY" how was this ever considered for a speedy deletion is beyond me. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep if and only if we can show that her life was more notable than her death (no disrespect to her but people are murdered all the time, doesn't in itself make her notable). • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 19:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but expand. It looks like a reasonable case can be made to say she should have had a page anyhow, so let's make the page she should have had while alive.--Nickpheas (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Done quite enough in her career to be listed, untimely death is beside the point. Paste (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • delete (Anon IP) the page was only created after [and because of] her death. if she were notable for her life it would have been created earlier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.14.123 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (Anon IP) Other articles have been created following a person's death, and I don't seem to recall all this fuss over those. I want to draw people's attention to Trish Williamson as an example. She only really rose to prominance because she was a weathergirl on TV-AM, and somebody's daughter. The article concerning her was created following her death in a motoring accident late last year. Where do we draw the line folks? Should Natasha Collins be deleted simply because her life was cut short, and she didn't get to achieve as much as she might? I think not. 86.147.219.233 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Needs expansion, though. D.M.N. (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whoever proposed this for deletion needs their head testing. There are some exceptional circumstances regarding her death and her breath career is worth mentioning alone. The article simply needs improvement. Tom Green (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to an appropriate section of Mark Speight. Her career lasted less than two years -- a handful of television acting roles have surfaced, that's all. She appears to have done nothing of note since her accident in 2000. Had it not been for the unfortunate circumstances of her death, no one would be requesting an article for her. WP:BIO1E applies. --Popplewick (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Objection to keeping the article seems to be that Ms Collins was only a minor celebrity in life and that she is only notable as a consequence of her unusual death. I think (plainly speaking without meaning to sound callous) that the combination of "minor celebrity" + "unusual death" = notable. The news story is not finished. We don't know the cause of death and whether there will be any criminal charges resulting from it (to anyone). It would be churlish and disrespectful to try and second guess these outcomes and on this premise we should not make a rash decision to delete the article IMHO. Rrsmac (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as tv presenter. Her career, while short, existed. Had she lived longer, she may have been even more notable than she is now. Editorofthewiki (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. She was a notable person. --Paukrus (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (Anon IP) Remember, James Dean starred in only three films before his untimely death in 1955. 81.152.144.31 (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Unlike Natasha Collins. Actually, I'd be quite happy to see Wikipedia cover less notable people (I thought of requesting an article on Emma Fitch, for example - Fitch was the woman who did the Kelly Homes tattoo hoax, and from the publicity for that alone, is probably more notable than Natasha Collins ever was), but I don't think it's going to happen. My vote would be keep, provided that this set a precedent for the lowering of notability requirements. -88.109.27.53 (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • James Dean was already famous before his death, plus he is still notable after his death, and what about Ms Collins, she wasn't notable before her death and I am very doubtful that she will be when Easter comes considering there is nothing memorable about her career. Also this article had been created following her death, so in this case I don't this article will ever survive and I don't think the notability requirements should be lowered as we got too many junk articles. Willirennen (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ahem, what is wrong with creating articles following one's death? People then start noticing that person. Evebn if she wasn't famous during her life, she was notable (there's a differences). Editorofthewiki (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, her death has made the national headlines in the UK, so she has some notoriety.(A. Carty (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Keep (Anon IP) she is obviously notable as she is in the papers and on the news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.160.2 (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2008
  • Comment on above lot, I do question on those with a keep nomination, are you nominating keep because of the recent drugs death prompted you to google her name and you found this and because it is in a AfD nomination, you decided to vote keep for the sake of it. Ask yourself this, have you heard of her before her death, if no, then ask yourself why are you voting keep, is it because it is another "celebrity". Other than that, a drugs death involving a children's TV presenter is going to create more media attention that a porn actor's death would, why, if you are a parent, would you feel scandalised that a drugs death involves a children's TV presenter. Not to mention that all publicity only concerns her death and nothing before it. Willirennen (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • From Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS - "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." Despite coverage of her death, she has not become a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia article. --Popplewick (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Willirennen's comments directly above. Very well put. TheIslander 14:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (Anon IP) Perhaps those saying that her career was notable could explain what she actually did.78.148.55.81 (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • She worked as a TV presenter, which I see as notable. Beside that, there's her death, which is covered by many sources. But she did do other work. Editorofthewiki (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What has she presented (other than corporate videos, I mean)? --Popplewick (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Other than that, nothing; but she worked as a model and an actrees in several children's tv shows. The fact that an actress in a children's tv show took drugs, to me, guarantees one inherant notability. Unusual circumstances of death is just an add-on. Editorofthewiki (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • We don't even know that she has taken drugs. That's purely speculative until the toxicologist report comes through. Still notable? --Popplewick (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (Anon IP) How notable is she? So enormously notable that when she had the accident that effectively ended her career seven years ago, it didn't even make the news. So notable that when she died, the story wasn't "FAMOUS PERSON DIES", it was "KIDS' TV PRESENTER ARRESTED OVER DEATH OF GIRLFRIEND WHO WE THINK WAS A PRESENTER OR AN ACTRESS OR SOMETHING, WE'VE NEVER ACTUALLY HEARD OF HER BUT WE GOOGLED HER AND FOUND A SMALL CV THAT LISTS NON-STARRING CREDITS IN THREE TV SHOWS NOBODY REMEMBERS". Wow, really notable then. - 88.109.27.53 (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Err, would you mind not shouting please? See WP:CIVIL. TheIslander 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I wasn't shouting, I was imitating a newspaper headline. Strewth. Why do I even bother? -88.109.27.53 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (answer to Popplewick) OK, fine have it your way. I still think she took drugs, but please see the rest of my arguement. Still notable? Yes. Editorofthewiki (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (Anon IP) Unless someone's going to go through deleting all the articles about all the so-called non notable actors/actresses/television presenters, etc - living or deceased. And there are quite a few of these. One I found this afternoon is a biography of Nathalie Lunghi. Who's she? I hear you ask. Well, she's Cherie Lunghi's daughter (Cherie being a wee bit more famous than Nathalie). But she still has an article, despite having only appeared in a handful of productions. Admittedly, she's alive and well and in her early 20s, so perhaps this is a different case, and she will hopefully have a long and prosperous career ahead of her. It's still a short article though, so if we're going to apply strict rules to these things, shouldn't we be deleting her until she's more notable? And Nathalie's brother, Rowan Joffe also has an article, incidentally, and that's even shorter. But these guys have notable parents, and careers worthy of a mention on the IMDB, and Natasha Collins had a (sadly for the wrong reasons right now) notable boyfriend/fiance, and also merited an IMDB entry.
  • Something that concerns me more, however, are the countless articles about porn stars who nobody's heard of (unless they happen to have an unhealthy appetite for those kinds of films). A few examples for you to consider here include Elen Cole, Josephine James, Stephanie Bews, Samantha Sterlyng, and a whole lot more besides. Now tell me how they're famous (other than for starring in blue movies), and whether we should be keeping them. 217.43.194.18 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
We keep them because they pass the notability guidelines for adult movie stars. Decisions like that are the exact reason we make specific notability guidelines. If they fail such tests then the articles will be deleted as and when. Thus, because Natasha Collins was not a porn star (as far as we know), that is off topic. Jdcooper (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment that guideline is extremely low. Since there are no guidelines for supercentenarians almost every one gets deleted. Editorofthewiki (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (Anon IP) I never said she was. You're completely missing the point I was making. There are plenty of articles about non-notable people on Wikipedia, many of whom are less notable than Natasha Collins is or was (depending on how you look at it). My reference to the above mentioned porn stars (and to the other actors for that matter) was to make my point. These were just articles I happened to land on in the course of my Wikitravels this (or rther yesterday now) afternoon, and on a different day I may have generated a completely different list of people. 217.43.194.18 (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe someone's supposed to point you towards this essay: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Other than that, the porn stuff is off topic for this discussion, which is only intended to deal with the one article. --Popplewick (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (Anon IP) Sure, but I'm probably not the only one who should be directed there. 217.43.194.18 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You know, that's a great policy, but I believe that that anon was making a point about the fact that notability standards are being lowered to the point that this article should be kept. A point that I agree with. Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment (Anon IP) Thank you. That's exactly the point I was making, though I could have been a little more concise in the way I made it, I guess. 217.43.194.18 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Just because other undeserving articles have not yet been deleted, doesnt mean we have to keep this one until they are; we dont have to delete articles in order of triviality. In all cases such as this, the question is not "is the subject notable?" but "does the subject pass notability guidelines?". For us to decide whether a subject is notable is original research. We let the agreed policies make the decision. In this case I feel that the policies are being too loosely interpreted. Ask yourself, if Collins had not died this week, and she had an article, and it was nominated for deletion, would you all be so vociferously defending it? Would you even care? Probably not, and since everyone dies, just dying does not mean you pass any notability guidelines, because then everyone would be eligible for an article, provided they had died. Footnote in Mark Speight, who is not even particularly significant himself. Jdcooper (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete She wasn't really that notable, so why have an article about her? A redirect to Mark Speight might be useful, but as she will probably have been forgotten in a few weeks, I guess even that's pointless. Brett Leaford (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Notable, but not famous. Until her death. Had she not died perhaps she would have been famous. Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep She may be dead but the story has not yet ended. Possible public interest. Triwbe (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The story of her death has certainly received a lot of media coverage - it was one of the main stories on Sky yesterday. I'd say therefore that she was noteworthy, so the article should be kept. Paul20070 (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd describe that story as being the story of Speight's arrest, not the story of her death. If she had been murdered by found dead in the apartment of Joe Average, it wouldnt have made sky news... Jdcooper (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Presenter on a national BBC channel with a lot of reliable sources. Many bio articles are only created when someone dies; I guess that's when the RSs pop up. The JPStalk to me 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • She never worked as a presenter on any national channel. I mean, good grief, if people are determined to keep the article, then so be it, but between poorly sourced allegations of drug abuse and blatantly untrue assertions of her working as a BBC presenter, I do have to wonder at how well informed many of these comments are. --Popplewick (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • She co-presented "See It, Saw It", which was broadcast on BBC One for two years. BBC One is a national channel that is run by the BBC, hence the repeated use of the phrase "BBC presenter". Brad (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, she did not present that programme, she was an actress hired to play a supporting role in that programme. There is no evidence she ever presented a show on national television – mainly because she has never presented a show on national television. --Popplewick (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it right to say that she didn't "present" it when reliable sources say she did? Brad (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It is when they're wrong. --Popplewick (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Brad, care to share these sources with the rest of us? We seem to be having trouble finding any reliable sources that state she was a national television presenter. TheIslander 13:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • At least one news source, Sky News, has described her role on See It Saw It as co-presenter. However, this was an early story, part of the rush to get a headline out. Calmer heads have since adopted phrases such as "appeared alongside him". --Popplewick (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • TheIslander, I would but they're much the same as the one Popplewick has posted above; articles written only a few hours after her death. BBC News Online referred to her as a "presenter" a couple of days ago, however they often change articles without noting the amendments. In the absence of permanent sources saying she was a presenter, I'll go with a weak delete -- she was the "See" of See It, Saw It but currently the only notability she seems to have is dying. I also suggest not redirecting to the Speight article. Brad (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The irony is that including articles (or to put it another way, preserving information) on people like Natasha Collins, who aren't actually all that famous, or are famous for a week, would actually add real value to the Wikipedia project. If only Wikipedia collectively was serious about being a repository of human knowledge, rather than its actual attitude of WE decide what's notable and sucks boo to you if you want to know anything WE don't deem important enough. It's so tied to the "old media" idea of what an encyclopedia is, that it systematically rejects the very advantages that that an online encyclopedia project ought to embrace. It could, and should include articles like Natasha Collins, and Emma Fitch, and David Martin (murder suspect), and Steven and Paul Cheatle and... well, you get the picture. All of these people got massive publicity for a short time but try looking for info on them now and it's a pain in the neck, even with the benefit of the web. Wikipedia should be trying to fill that knowledge gap, not widening it. - Q4 (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Though you actually make some quite interesting points, they're not particularly relevant here. All we're discussing here is the article on Natasha Collins, and whether it should be deleted or not, not the basic policies of Wikipedia. In this discussion, whether you agree with the policies or not is more or less irrelevant; this is a forum to state whether you thik the article in question abides by those policies or not. TheIslander 11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Back to the subject in hand, just to make it crystal clear for the closing sysop, people keep stating that she was a national TV presenter on the BBC. She was not. They also state that she took drugs, which apparently makes her notable. This has yet to be proved one way or the other. TheIslander 11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    She appeared in three TV shows, and presented corporate videos to the BBC. That makes your point irrelevant, unless you want to contradict The Times. Please see this ref, closing admin, before you delete this article:[1] Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Read a copy of yesterday's Daily Express last night. The story is on page five, and is largely about Speight, and the details of the death and police investigation. Of Collins, it says she was a "promising actress". Hmmm. Promising actress. That says to me that she may have been more notable had she lived and had more roles, but at the time of her death, she was not. Brett Leaford (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment She may have been a promising actress way back when, before the car accident she was in in 2000/2001. That promise was not fulfilled in the years after that. --Popplewick (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    She appeared in three TV shows —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorofthewiki (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 January 2008
  • Keep (Anon IP) I think she is important enough84.134.93.225 (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin - at least five of the anon IPs I've highlighted in the conversation above have no edits save those to this page. Just something to bear in mind... TheIslander 17:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I see somebody has seen fit to create a See It, Saw It article today. Just thought it was worth mentioning this. Brett Leaford (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That seems non-controversial - a popular show in its day. However, a page for Kate Crossley is probably going too far. Especially as it seems to have been created by someone who doesn't realise that See was a jester rather than the jester in See it Saw it. (Guess what the other one was called?) - PinkEllie (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • There's also a page on Philip Fox. He's probably a bit more notable than Natasha Collins and Kate Crossley, but even so. Where does this end? Brett Leaford (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems notable both for her life and death. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Her death has received much attention in the British media. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that

    A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

    The extensive media coverage of Natasha Collins in multiple reliable sources cited in Natasha_Collins#References clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence. John254 02:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As an anon IP I am of course worthless scum (at least, that's the impression I get from this discussion) but I would nevertheless suggest that the news coverage (re-)establishes notability for Speight, not Collins. The interest in Collins is entirely because she died in Speight's appartment and (I regret to say) nothing to do with Collins' own notability. If you want an indication of how notable Collins was, look at how much coverage her road accident got at the time: none. - 88.109.118.83 (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You are not worthless scum, and we are sorry you feel you've been treated that way. Anyway, she did present corporate videos and act as See in See It, Saw It. Editorofthewiki (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And really did little else apart from that. Oh, I mustn't forget, she was in 10th Kingdom and Real Women II, or someone will remind me of the fact. I once appeared in an Open University documentary for about five seconds. Perhaps I should have an article. Brett Leaford (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You may have been in it for 10 seconds, but this women was co-star for a year. Plus she had a few other roles that you demonstrated. I don't see any question for deletion of Kate Crossley, who functioned as See following Collins' departure and little else. But something. Editorofthewiki (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Five seconds actually. And my point is that I am just a Joe Average who happened to appear on television. So was Collins really, and so was Kate Crossley. Brett Leaford (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really; she appaeraed in three notable tv shows, the co-star of one. That, besides her death, seems notable to me. Editorofthewiki (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
U wil call eNythin "noptaBLE" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charley Uchea (talk • contribs) 01:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Been coming back here for days reading all the comments and pondering the concept of notability. I just don't think this is quite enough, I think someone needs to be notable beyond the resume of this woman and I have issues with one's greatest notablity being a rather unnotable death.OneHappyHusky (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Everyone's welcome to their opinion, but you don't make policy. Her resume seems to meet WP:BIO as per above John254's comment and mine further up. Editorofthewiki (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Ownlee famoos 4 been ded, of cours theres the paper dead secrtion of those who wan 2 b famoos 4 beng ded. Charley Uchea (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, to reming everybody that this si not a memorial site. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ Children’s TV presenter arrested on suspicion of his fiancee’s murder. Times (2008-01-05). Retrieved on 2008-01-05.
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.