Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Érin Geraghty


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There's no consensus both regarding the level of sourcing and notability, and the validity of what I assume is indeed a deletion request by the subject. I am persuaded by DGG's argument for why, under these circumstances, I should not exercise whatever discretion I may have as closer to close this as "delete" per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE.  Sandstein  16:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Érin Geraghty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ms Geraghty has contacted me as the article's creator asking for it to be deleted for the following reasons:


 * it breaches her right to privacy
 * it is inaccurate and could damage her career
 * she did not request it and does not want it

I blanked the page citing these reasons but it has been reinstated. Jack1956 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete - perfectly valid reasons to delete. Dreamspy (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as nominator has not provided a valid reason for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The subject appears to be notable under WP:NACTOR, there does not appear to be negative material in the article, and the article does not appear to be written non-neutrally. Inaccuracies can and should be corrected with proper sourcing, and the article could certainly use better sourcing in general, but those are not reasons to delete. So, to clarify, to which valid reason for deletion are you referring? Bakazaka (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per Bakazaka's comment above. The subject herself has zero control over the article and does not have the authority to delete her article on Wikipedia; even concerning the reason, privacy violations alone should be handled via a request for an office action, never here. ToThAc (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. While she is an active actress, she has no public social media accounts, doesn't give interviews, and doesn't have a large fan base. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:LOWPROFILE, which is the "see also" in the second policy you cite, clarifies that a person is "high-profile" if they have "appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage". That is the case for this subject, an active professional actress. As the explanatory supplement suggests, the "low profile/not public" language in the documents you cite is meant to protect otherwise unremarkable living people who get caught up in coverage of events and might technically qualify under WP:GNG, not people whose professions depend on public attention and whose articles are about their entirely public careers. Bakazaka (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:LOWPROFILE notes that "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." You quoted the characteristics described under "Appearances and performances" but she probably doesn't meet the characteristics of "Media attention", "Promotional activities", or "Eminence". Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an explanatory supplement, not a checklist. The subject is an actress with a decades-long career pursuing roles on screen and stage, successfully. Her career has plenty of RS coverage going back to at least 1971 (Variety review of Tales of Beatrix Potter), and in her later career she is described using phrases like "renowned British actress". She may have different preferences now, but her 40+ year public-facing career is a legitimate subject of a BLP-compliant article. I'm sure you are acting in good faith and we simply disagree, so it's probably a good time to let other editors weigh in. Bakazaka (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * She does, however, have her own website promoting herself as an actress! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, while this Twitter account isn't checkmark verified, it seems to be her. She's had it for ten years, and the account is highly active, racking up 20 500 tweets and 20 900 likes. That's about 12 posts a day, most of which seem to be related to the industry. So the claim that there's no public social media doesn't seem to be correct. Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Neutral. The subject is an active actress in television and film, not a private person whose biography should be suppressed to protect her privacy. That said, her notability does not seem to be strong enough to establish her as notable per WP:NACTOR. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the sources are not WP:RSs, including information about her children cited to poor sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Though it is difficult to maintain that an article about an actor ipso facto breaches his or her privacy, I concur with the immediately preceding comment that the bulk of the citations do not conform to WP:RS, and also that the notability of the performer is far from demonstrated. The statement that the article is materially inaccurate, though we are not told the details, is another reason to suggest to me that Wikipedia would do well to delete this article. I take all the points made above by Bakazaka, but on balance I think deletion is decidedly the best course.  Tim riley  talk   06:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per many of the above WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. I'm also conscious of the (European) law of the right to be forgotten. While we are under no legal reason to remove the article (with the servers in the US), I do think we shouldn't ignore valid LP requests in this area. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm honestly not sure she's notable enough for an article and obviously unsourced material should be removed anyway (as it should be for any article, especially BLPs). However, I find the reasons for requested deletion and some of the comments bizarre. She is an actress. She is still working as an actress. She has a website promoting herself as an actress. If she'd wanted a "right to privacy" or a "right to be forgotten" then a career as an actress is clearly not the right one to have picked and maintaining a website about herself is obviously hypocritical! It seems she's more concerned about picking and choosing which information she wants to be on the internet rather than an actual right to privacy; if everyone did that and it was upheld then we'd be exceptionally constrained about writing about any living person on Wikipedia, as we could only include information that they wanted included, even if it was properly sourced. It's not her choice whether we have an article about her or not and it's not her choice what information is included in that article (as long as it's already in the public domain in a reliable source, of course). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Take out the stuff supported by tabloids, and you're left with content that is pretty much the same as is presented on the subject's own website, so I would take the request to delete with a pinch of salt. Having said that, she isn't a clearly notable actor, so if she doesn't want an article here, let's delete it. --Michig (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. She has performed internationally, and positive reviews of her have appeared in Canadian and US newspapers, as well as national UK papers. (The birth of her triplets was reported in national UK newspapers at the time, so mentioning that with reliable sources should be OK too, though not necessary to a profile of her as an actress.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete if the subject doesn't want the article and its causing her problems it should go 2A00:23C4:E180:8101:AD83:19EC:BCE8:3AC (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply it looks to function as basically a Linkedin profile (one of the most prominent links is "C.V.") that she sends to people when she's applying for acting roles. Pretty tame compared to Tom Cruise's website which has a banner promoting his latest movie taking up most of the screen, a link to "get tickets", and links to his social media accounts. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I very strongly think we should generally not honor requests from a person for the article about them to be removed, when it's an articles about someone's public career, though of course there are special cases.  The reason is that honoring such requests gives the subjects a veto power over our content--it is usually a statement that they want more positive or promotional coverage than we are giving, and they only want a promotional article, not a NPOV article. (essentially, "I want it my way, or you can't have it")  Claims of "inaccurate and could damage their career" usually means that the "inaccuracy" is not including the fluff, and that  they thing anything their press agent does not control would damage their career. Actual inaccuracy can & should be  corrected, and always is if the evidence is provided to the OTRS agent.  I doubt that even in Europe an actress can claim retrospectively that she has a right to privacy in her career., at least her adult career in mainstream film. If we want to consider actual notability, that would be best done by closing this and opening an AfD not contaminated by the subject's personal wishes.  DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. If any of the content is inaccurate, it should be fixed and obviously the content should be fully referenced. I have certainly heard of her so she's not a nonentity, and she has the opportunity to enlighten us as to what is supposedly wrong with the article rather than asking us to delete it for privacy reasons. What would she say if every production she appears in remained unreviewed so as to protect the actors' privacy? To be gushingly complimentary is not the function of this encyclopedia. Deb (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the acting career is not to the level we should have the article over the objections of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not really seeing any evidence of notability as such .... The reviews are great and all but I'd prefer to see a lot more besides those, Google News doesn't bring up much in terms of notability, It's a tough one but overall I'd say Delete for failing GNG (not because she requests it as that's not really relevant). – Davey 2010 Talk 15:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per above keep !votes. While not the most prominent of actresses, there is definitely a case to be made for notability given the sources in the article and quoted here. Acting is public-facing profession, she has a website and apparently very active Twitter account (though not checkmarked) which posts a ton on industry-related things, and her notability is at the very worst borderline, so I don't think WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can accept that the picture is not exactly the most flattering in the world, and she wants to keep her family out of the limelight. However, her theatrical appearances are a matter of public record and documented in multiple good-quality sources, so I cannot in good conscience call WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE on this. If the article still contains factual errors, we need to know what they are so we can fix them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.