Talk:Lily Argent

Notability
It has been pointed out at Talk:Catherine Lynch that this article, as well as Selina Rushbrook, is not particularly notable. Should we delete it, or just leave it be in the aftermath of the Catherine Lynch AfD fiasco? Centibyte (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A speedy keep on procedural grounds (being on main page) is not cause for retaining an article long term. I think all 3 (which are similary sourced to local papers reporting local crime and a single self published book) should be nommed as a bundled group - but say a week after the main page appearance.Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete them all once the article is gone from the front page.--Catlemur (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This one just as the rest are notable. I think : agrees--BabbaQ (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * None of them is notable and this is not changed by the fact that they all refer to each other: a textbook example of WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Eustachiusz (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion Nomination
I have bundled this article into an AfD nomination at Articles for deletion/Catherine Lynch. Centibyte (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All will be kept so just as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Correction: Articles for deletion/Catherine Lynch (2nd nomination) Centibyte (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Removals, inaccuracies, and restoration
At User talk:Iridescent, an IP editor noted that this article had been severely cut back, to this, which not only has hardly any information, it gives both her birth and her married names as Bumster, which is simply inaccurate. (Note also the error "the Bumster' six children".) reverted the removal of the top image, rejecting the edit summary argument that it was a copyright violation. After examining the history, I have restored the version of 15 April 2021, with a correction to alt text and an added wikilink in a caption.

The first edit I thereby reverted was that of on 24 May 2021. They changed the date of birth in the text but not the infobox. I am unable to check the date in Elizabeth Belcham's book, but the August date appears in this Facebook entry by the Police History of Wales, posted the month before Orange Sorbet's edit, and which is otherwise clearly based on the intro of our article. If someone can please check the book, it may be that they and Orange Sorbet are correct, but until it's checked I thinkit's best to keep the date that's in the infobox.

On 16 December 2022, IP 69.191.241.96 then made 2 changes toning down the intro and removing the names of her accomplices from it. I assume these changes were in good faith.

The huge cuts and name inaccuracy came from IP 70.19.70.167 on the same day. They were twice reverted by, who also templated them, but resumed cutting, this time with edit summaries. These claim plagiarism / copyvio, notably this edit, which refers to "parts that were plagiarized directly from the source (line by line)". This is manifestly untrue; the removed text cited multiple sources. The previous edit claimed no source for the removed point, but the point removed from the intro is covered by a citation in the article body. (The same edit also removed cited information from a paragraph within the article body.) And I agree with Johnbod that the reason for removal of the top image, copyright, is invalid. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)