Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Harries: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:43, 8 April 2008

Lauren Harries

I believe this to be not notable enough for inclusion per our guidelines. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I wouldn't have nominated it myself but am reluctant to oppose nomination. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, entirety of notability appears to be "was on a chat show as a child", "is a transsexual", and "once got beaten up". Neıl ☎ 00:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Neil, you said exactly what I was going to write. Harries' appearance on Wogan is so non-notable that he isn't mentioned in our article. Transsexualism and violence toward transsexuals is not notable in and of itself, perhaps sadly. Risker (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In fairness I think the BBC would have covered the case without her having been on Wogan as they cover tens of such cases each day. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps true, Squeakbox. I was referring to the fact that our article on the television show Wogan doesn't mention Harries' appearance, suggesting his presence was relatively unimportant. Risker (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of people who have appeared on Wogan, the overwhelming majority were celebs, doubt anyone would be mentioned in Wogan's article unless they murdered the crowd.... Minkythecat (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests, then, that being on Wogan isn't a guaranteed metric of notability. I'd hasten to point out, I've been on TV several times now, (interviewed about one thing or another) and I'm not notable by any stretch of the imagination. ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - we should have a WP:BLP2E to cover cases where someone's name is in the news for several unrelated things but those don't really establish notability even combined --Random832 (contribs) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom and Neil... delete ... textbook example of a BLP we should not have. ++Lar: t/c 02:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep notable as a child with an appearance on the BBC and is mentioned in 'where are they now' shows on tele to show his transformation, only last year. It's late now so I'll do more tomorrow, but 59 google news articles [1] special, random, Merkinsmum 03:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So this person is notable... why exactly? Notable for being notable? ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's been in newspaper articles and on the telly. Call it a 'media personality', and perhaps model? And transexual:) It's no different from many 'celebrities' these days, many don't have to do anything involving talent. special, random, Merkinsmum 03:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can reflect that in the article I will certainly reconsider my vote, especially having myself already done my best to at least make it a decent article in the style sense. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Zero claim to notability. What you have is a media appearance base upon expertise on antiques - which has been shown to have been rehearsed. You've then someone who changed sex. A couple of documentaries on TV, all of which had the "oh, look this person's a bit odd" feel to them, was attacked and errm, that's it. Sorry, there's zero notability in any of those points. If you include based upon the antiques bit, then you can justify including anyone from silly end news stories. The changing sex, well, quite a few people have had such operations, can't see everyone in here. Documentaries don't in themselves lend any credibility, especially when the aim is degredation. People attacked? well, with the number of chavs in Britain, not notable. Lauren Harries is an extreme self-promoter with zero achievements in life. At least, no achievements that would qualify for an entry in a real encyclopedia, which this laughably claims to be. Heat magazine, sure. Encyclopedia Brittanica, never. Minkythecat (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Television appearances over an extended period (20 years) strongly suggest at least fringe notability as a media personality. Article is sourced, references look good. PC78 (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think LOL is the best response. Wogan appearance, THE most notable and indeed only claim to fame - unsourced. Channel 4 documentary - which, if you'd watched it, was extracting the urine - unsourced. Channel Five show - unsourced. Only sourced TV appearance... oh wait, something that may or may not happen. The only other references apply to the personal life section, and that's specifically to an assault. One of which is actually the result of the trial... please refactor your keep rationale... Minkythecat (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think "Sod off" is the best response. Did you bother to look at any of the refs or external links? Wogan is mentioned in one of the refs and also the Guardian interview, while the Kieth Allen documentary is mentioned in another. While I have no taste for "celebrities" who are famous for being famous, such people tend to be prevalent in this day and age, and to my eyes there is enough here on Lauren Harries to satisfy WP:BIO. PC78 (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think WP:CIVIL is the better response. Whilst Wogan may be referenced, it's in a powder puff interview with the Guardian. And indeed contradicts the text in the wiki article. All your amazing sources appear to be are a single interview, which by it's very nature is hardly impartial or objective. The rest refer to the assault case; oh wait, and a Lauren harries wiki style page full of self-promotion. You may be satisfied by Harries, but unless you can provide more substantive, independent sources, you're reaching. Minkythecat (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was hardly brimming with civility either, so don't try and throw that at me. There's nothing wrong with the Guardian interview as a source, and here's a couple of proper articles ([2], [3]) about the Keith Allen documentary. The bottom line is this: Harries is (just about) notable, the article asserts notability, and sources exist (here's a few more for good measure: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). That's good enough for me. Your arguments, on the other hand, tend to smack of IDON'TLIKEIT. PC78 (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the links you posted? All of which either refer to Wogan - at age 12, not 10 as the Wiki article states. The newspaper articles focus upon Harries sex change... oh, and being beaten up. Kindly provide something that's notable other than those 3 elements? A BLP should exist for all Wogan guests, hmmm? For all people who change sex? For all victims of assault? You've provided zero evidence for any notability other than having changed sex and been beaten up. It's clear true encyclopedic content. Minkythecat (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, my initial keep comment was based on media appearances over a twenty year period. So far we have Wogan (sourced), the Keith Allen documentary (sourced), the Big Brother non-appearance (sourced), Trust Me, I'm A Beauty Therapist ([9]), and a possible future show (again, sourced). Add to that the sex change and assault (both with ample sources), yet another article ([10]), and you have plenty that satisfies WP:BIO. Now you can ignore all that, debunk it, whatever, because I'm tired of repeating myself and will say no more on the subject. PC78 (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing bizarre mag et al interviews is merely propagating the Paris Hilton line of notability; famous for being Paris Hilton. Far from a continued 20 years of notable publicity, you've a) the single Wogan appearance. b) Years of silence. c) A well publicised sex change. d) numerous articles you've not referenced referring to "Lauren falling in love..." all utterly non notable. d) A "documentary" which existed solely to poke fun at Lauren. e) An assault. f) Totally minor television appearances where Lauren was used solely as "freak" interest.

The sole notable incident in Lauren's life was the Wogan appearance; everything since then has solely rested upon the sex change and the impact since. Everything allegedly notable has stemmed solely from the blurring of personal and self-publicised life. Minkythecat (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire above discussion loses no meaning at all without the first sentence of every comment, and would have been a lot more pleasant on the eye. No more snippy back and forth from either one of you; please restrict your comments to the discussion at hand. Neıl ☎ 09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 :::Perhaps true, Squeakbox. I was referring to the fact that our article on the television show ''[[Wogan]]'' doesn't mention Harries' appearance, suggesting his presence was relatively unimportant.  [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 :::: Given the number of people who have appeared on Wogan, the overwhelming majority were celebs, doubt anyone would be mentioned in Wogan's article unless they murdered the crowd.... [[User:Minkythecat|Minkythecat]] ([[User talk:Minkythecat|talk]]) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
+:::::That suggests, then, that being on Wogan isn't a guaranteed metric of notability. I'd hasten to point out, I've been on TV several times now, (interviewed about one thing or another) and I'm not notable by any stretch of the imagination. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 11:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 *'''delete''' - we should have a [[WP:BLP2E]] to cover cases where someone's name is in the news for several unrelated things but those don't really establish notability even combined --[[User talk:Random832|Random832]] ([[special:contributions/Random832|contribs]]) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 *Per nom and Neil... '''delete''' ... textbook example of a BLP we should not have. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 02:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)