Talk:Heather Ripley

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because there is enough information suitable for an article with a reliable source. She played a role on one of the biggest movies of all time. --IAmHeavyUrged (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find a record of this off the top of my head, but I believe we deleted a biography of this person a while ago. One factor which swayed us that in borderline cases of BLPs we tend to take the person's wishes into account, and although she has not explicitly stated that the doesn't want a Wikipedia article, she has made some attempt to avoid publicity since her solitary role at the age of 8, admittedly in a well-know film. We might turn this into a redirect to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and lock it, to discourage re-creation, as we have done with e.g. Desiree Washington, admittedly a more sensitive case but there are some similarities. PatGallacher (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That is what I have done. It was clear copyright violation text of an unreliable source, with no disrespect to the good faith creation by IAmHeavyUrged. Syrthiss (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about this. She was on a television programme earlier today, a reunion of the cast, and it seems that she has recently got involved again in acting in filmmmaking in a small way, and she tried to make use of her film role when she was involved in the Faslane Peace Camp. However I still think we should proceed with caution, she is still a person of only borderline notability, possibly she fails WP:ONEEVENT. PatGallacher (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

She would come under people who are relatively unknown, see WP:NPF, with all the qualifications here I doubt if we could write a decent biography. PatGallacher (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

More information supporting the implied wish to avoid publicity can be found at --Petebutt (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The movie has enjoyed a resurgence so it seems strange to have her as the only cast member in a redirect to the movie page rather than having an entry. Perfectommy (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If there was any contention to have a wiki page then why is there a reliable IMDB page for Heather? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmd63 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Child-catcher.png

Content removal
An editor claiming to be a family member has blanked two thirds of the article’s content three times now in 24 hours, breaking the 3RR rule. They claim the content, from the reputable sources The Guardian and The Times, is inaccurate and causing distress. I have not reinstated the more personal information but did put back the section dealing with the subject’s more recent career. I cannot see anything contentious or likely to cause distress in it but the editor is persistently removing it. I have posted preliminary warnings on his Talk Page and have advised him to come here to voice his concerns. Jack1956 (talk)
 * Well we now have two family members who happen to be Wikipedia editors on this. Who knew her family were so involved in Wikipedia. So even if not sockpuppetry it's definitely meatpuppetry. Canterbury Tail talk 18:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * An editor removed this, but it seems relevant and well-referenced:

" in 1970, when her by now divorced mother married the fine art dealer David Glaisyer she assumed her stepfather's surname in a bid for anonymity ref name="Guardian2" Hollywood made me what I am, says new age protester facing court fight, The Guardian, 10 August 1999 /ref and moved with him and her mother to Dublin in Ireland. Three years later the family moved to the Cotswolds where she worked in her stepfather's art business.ref name=Guardian/


 * What do others think about restoring that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment, so I think we should avoid tabloid-style detail, especially about third parties, and I encourage you to carefully to review the sources, because there appears to have been content and details in this article that were unsupported by the references. Beccaynr (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I have refactored proposed text due to the original research, fictitious references, and BLP issues, because I am concerned my recent comment was not clear enough about these problems in the proposed text, and because there was a recent attempt to re-add the text to the article without discussion or consensus. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But it is not my opinion or that of Ssilvers above. The deleted content is from a reliable source and is not tabloid in style. It merely mentions a divorce and subsequent remarriage. What is offensive or harmful in that? Dreamspy (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are various issues here, including that details that are claimed to be "well-referenced" do not actually appear in the sources, which is why I mention fictitious references and original research. That is not an opinion, it is a fact, and based on my review of the article and its sources, this type of addition was not an isolated incident in this article. Another issue is the WP:BLP policy, for example, in the WP:BLPNAME section, The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced. The recent attempt to add the disputed block of content above therefore also appears to include content contrary to WP:BLP policy. It also does not appear to add encyclopedic content to the article, e.g. WP:NOTGOSSIP, Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person. Beccaynr (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)