This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Shouldn't there be a link to a discussion page for articles under AfD?Autarch (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template is a prod anyone that thinks she is notable can remove it if it is not removed the article will be deleted after a week, do you think she is notable? WP:BIOOff2riorob (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She was involved in the Cheriegate scandal which received much publicity at the time - the main people involved were the Blairs, Carole Caplin and Peter Foster. Whether the article on Carole Caplin should remain or be merged with the Cheriegate section I'm not sure. She has been quoted in the media since Cheriegate. Anyway, it seems someone else has decided.Autarch (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the template is not the decision its just a path on the road, she's not very notable in my opinion, claims attachment through other people and it was mostly one event, as you say, she was involved and then I had to ask myself..yes but in what way? I saw a puff piece recently more of an advert really commenting about what she thought brown should do, not much of an article is it really, if you take away the stuff that is not really to do with her you have almost nothing left, anyways lets see, let it float for a bit and come back later, thanks for commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support merging to Cherie_Blair#Controversies, or maybe just redirect since much of the content seems to be there already. Alternately, if she's notable for things besides Cheriegate, this article could be expanded to cover some of that. --GenericBob (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She has received much coverage for eight years now and is famous in her own right. The article needs expanding, not deleting, merging or redirecting.--Michig (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Famous is a bit much Michig, she herself individually is not even notable, you have to coatrack others on to her to even begin to get anytyhing to write about. Off2riorob (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. She went on to be a columnist (bizarrely) in the Mail on Sunday, wrote a book ([1]) which itself received significant coverage, and continued to receive coverage for years after the initial 'Cheriegate' story. She has received much significant coverage in reliable sources, and not solely for one event. She is, therefore, notable.--Michig (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
