User talk:Paine Ellsworth/United Kingdom prime minister mistaken for actress

WikiProjectBannerShell

Notability?
Since I think this event has proven to be notable, and since I loathe edit warring, I brought this to the draft article's discussion page. First, E.M.Gregory you noted:

...in your edit summary.

Am I to gather that you consider my stab at being helpful and writing an article on the event per the instructions in the WP:BIO1E guideline to be "disruptive"? If so, please be assured that is not my intent. Since the discussion at Articles for deletion/Teresa May (actress) has several mentions of why the event is notable, and since the sources in the Teresa May (actress) article, which I've used in this draft, also appear to support the notability of the event, I did and do think of the event as notable. Upon what do you base your opinion that the event may not be notable?

Secondly, IdreamofJeanie you noted:

...in your edit summary.

If I'm not mistaken, the sources have picked up on the name-spelling difference to infer that the prime minister was indeed mistaken for the actress. Why is your opinion otherwise? Thank you both for reading and commenting!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * pure journalistic senationalism. It would not have sold any papers for a headline to say "British PM's name misspelled" IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well stated. No sources have been found in this series of AFD discussions that support the notability of this porn model before the misspellings began.  The only POINT to having an article about the porn model appears t be that it supports a hatnote on the Prime Minister's page.  But the entire misspelling topic of this article is an example of the type of WP:SENSATION that is disparaged on Wikipedia both as WP:NOTSCANDAL and as mere WP:SENSATION.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both of you that what we have so far in this draft is insufficient. And that the actress/model herself lacks notability and should not be on Wikipedia other than as a redirect to this event. As it is now, this draft article is nothing more than the sensationalist crap that is presently in the article under discussion, the actress's article. However, there does seem to be some agreement in the deletion discussion that the event itself may be notable enough for inclusion as an article. What I think is needed is to decide if the event is indeed notable. If not, then this draft can be deleted along with the actress's article. If so, if the event is notable, then this draft can be honed and sharpened while the actress's article can be redirected to the finished product. That is all that I'm doing here. I'm undergoing surgery tomorrow, so I don't know when I will be able to return to this. Best of everything to both of you!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  22:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It only reached the papers because they were able to exploit the coincidence that there happened to be someone called Teresa May, and that she was a porn model. If the only Teresa May in the phone book had been a retired post mistress then it would have gone unnoticed. non event, IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And that's what the press does with celebrities – when reasons to exploit exist (and sometimes when they don't) the press exploits, because that's what sells media vehicles.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  07:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)