Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angie Phillips


 * 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 to delete, default to keep. Although mainly from tabloids, the present sources - given their number and diversity - appear sufficient to support the current noncontroversial content for the purposes of WP:V. Sandstein 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Angie Phillips

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

To be honest, this is speediable, as no claim is made for significance. As, however, someone "prodded" it, and an anon removed the template without making any attempt to improve the article or discuss it at Talk, but claiming that it ought to be discussed, I've brought it here. One of many weather-forecasters, not significant enough for an article. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, just to make things clear. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As some admins seem to assume that new evidence will automatically convince earlier contributors to a discussion, I'll just make clear here that it hasn't changed my view. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Valrith 18:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - no assertion of notability at all. Walton monarchist89 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless properly sourced and referenced showing accordance to WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Besides being a country-wide Northern Ireland weather presenter, there's a BBC Northern Ireland profile and she's the subject of multiple news pieces  .  A limited Google News Archive serach (search terms "'Angie Phillips' weather") brings up even more works.  Passes the regular WP:BIO guildelines.  --Oakshade 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)  Amendment - Yet two more articles found about the subject, these times from The News Letter and The Daily Mirror. --Oakshade 17:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Google search gave thirteen hits, most of them newspaper trivia pieces. That the BBC site has a profile of one of its employees is irrelevant, of course. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO clearly states that "trivial coverage" refers to such pieces "as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths." The multiple The People articles are well beyond the scope of "trivial".  An editor might not like the reason for that coverage, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a basis to delete an article.  And having a profile by (on being a presenter on) the BBC, one of the largest and arguably the most prestigous broadcaster in the world, demonstrates further notability.  --Oakshade 16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * She's having a third baby... this makes her notable? It suggests to me that the tabloid newspaper in question was having a slow news day. And you miss the point about the BBC; companies often put profiles of their employees on their own Web pages &mdash; that isn't a sign of notability. Note that I'm not trying to do her down; I'm sure that she's an excellent person, good at what is doubtless an interesting job, pleasant to be with, a good mother, and so on.  I'd very likely rather spend an evening in her company than in that of most of the people with Wikipedia articles.  But can you imagine any other encyclop&aelig;dia having an article on here?  The Britannica?  The Chambers?  Encarta even?  So why should we? --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to change the definition of "trivial" in WP:BIO (the inclusion crietria in Wikipeida, not Britannica or Chambers), you can make suggestions on its talk page, but your comments just confirm this subject adhears easily to WP:BIO and its non-trivial coverage clause. And the attack on the The People for having "a slow news day" is irrelevent and adds to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, this time regarding news-coverage.    --Oakshade 16:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I made the previous repsone, I've found this person is the subject of two more published works from The News Letter and The Daily Mirror - These are non-baby subject articles. We're at 5 published works now. --Oakshade 17:39, 28 January 2007 (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.


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. It was requested at DRV that this AfD be relisted to allow more debate after edits made by Oakshade. -- A Train take the 19:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have changed my earlier vote; the improved sourcing constitutes adequate evidence of coverage by third-party sources. Walton monarchist89 20:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Covered only by the tabloids, mostly in The People, the News of the World's lagging competitor, I'm not sure that the bottom of the barrel of British journalism counts as a reliable source. The articles required a fee to view them but the only one that seemed like it was a true article rather than a brief blurb was the one in The News Letter, but even if you consider that a reliable source, it still doesn't get us to the multiple requirement. JChap2007 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if you feel like discounting the mulitple The People articles (WP:BIO does not ban "tabloid" from its "published works" clause), the Daily Mirror, The News Letter and the Fresh Magazine ones easily qualify as "multiple." --Oakshade 04:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, but WP:BIO says the sources must be reliable. Qua re if the worst of the British tabloids qualify.  Anyway, the article in The News Letter is the only one that is longer than a mere blurb (a trivial mention), so the multiple requirement still wouldn't be satisfied. JChap2007 04:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not true. The News Letter is more than a "blurb" or "trivial mention" as the free preview shows 262 of 1,759 characters.  Plus The Daily Mirror article is also more than a "blurb" with that free preview showing 94 out of 677 characters, and the Fresh Magazine article is even more than both.  And The People is still a published work satisfing WP:BIO notability guildlines - "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following: Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths."  Whether it's a tabloid or not, it's still a published work.  --Oakshade 04:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, the News Letter is the only source of any length for this. 677 characters is under a hundred words.  Fresh magazine is put out by the Health Promotion Agency and its brief interview was about her childrens' eating and exercise habits. And you are ignoring the part of WP:BIO that says that the sources must be reliable.  JChap2007 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are confirming that the News Letter article is more than "just mention[ing] the person in passing." 100 words is well beyond "mentioning in passing".  And the  Fresh Magazine is a published work under WP:BIO and doesn't fall under any of the "exceptions".  Who publishes the magazine is irrelevant as the "source is independent of the person."  As for the reliable sources, that refers to accuracy of content, not notability.  If the National Enquirer writes several article about someone, that someone is notable, no matter how light weight the articles are.  And there are two new published works from the national charity Woodland Trust that are primarily about her .  We're up to eight published works about the subject. --Oakshade 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed it in my first post and in each subsequent post. The problem is we still don't have multiple articles of which she is the subject that are longer than blurbs (and yes, 100 words is just a blurb).  The Fresh magazine piece is just one in which she, along with other minor celebrities are asked questions about their children's diets.  A typical example is "Do your children like fruit and veg.?"  It doesn't provide any information about her.  Honestly, how are we supposed to use that as a source to write the article: "Angie Philllips, whose children like fruit and veg., is a weather presenter for the BBC"?  The Woodland Trust pieces similarly do not talk about her, but contain quotes from her in support of its mission. JChap2007 19:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confirmation of the confirmation :). A 100-word peice, whether someone labels it a "blurb" or not, is beyond WP:BIO's "passing mention."  Even if you feel like excluding all three of The People articles about her, plus the Fresh Magazine and the Woodland Trust articles, there's still two published works (i.e. "multiple") cited that are primarily about the subject.--Oakshade 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Everyking 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep even the delete !vote above states she's had repeated media coverage... so what if its a tabloid? It is not our job to judge whether or not what a source says is true.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, sources are supposed to be reliable &mdash; but more importantly, many of those sources are saying no more about her than that she had a third baby... If this were an article about someone notable for having three babies(!) then I suppose that those sources would provide verifiability and notability. Any presenter on local radio or television is likely to have been the subject of mini-article in newspapers on slow news days (I've been the subject of a couple &mdash; one in the Times, one in the New Statesman, because even academics get this sort of thing &mdash; should there be an article on me?  Articles on academics are constantly being deleted on grounds on=f non-notability, because it's deemed that what they've done doesn't raise them sufficiently above their peers.  Apparently they don't need to have written a successful book, just had an artcile about their child-bearing capabilities in the Sun); are we to have articles on every such person? They're not even micro-celebrities. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe there should be an article on you, Mel. :) (unless your real name is different, you didn't come up on a G-news Archives search like Angie Phillips did several times). Articles on academics are also constantly being kept because they pass WP:BIO.  But you're missing the point.  WP:BIO is passed here.  Whether an editor is assuming a news outlet is "having a slow news day" is irrelevent.  How do you know that major events weren't occuring on those days anyway?  It's 100% speculation and that is in no way a basis for deciding if a subject is notable.  And as stated above, even if you feel like discounting 3 of the published works about Angie Phillips you don't like, there's still 2 more non-trivial published works about her that are not just "passing mentions". --Oakshade 10:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do come up (my real name is a dark and deadly secret, known to a very few...). The point is, though, that those articles on me wouldn't demonstrate my notability (and neither or them was a passing mention).  Note also that WP:BIO only offers guidelines; editors are free to delete an article that meets the criteria there, and to keep an article that doesn't.  (And I wasn't saying that my belief that it must have been a slow news day was grounds for ignoring it, incidentally.)  Do you think that she's more notable than all the other presenters, newsreaders, weather-reporters, et al.?  If not, should we have an article on each of them? --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But the primary criteria of WP:BIO is met. If you want to arbitrarily ignore official policy guidelines on specific subjects you don't like, well, editors are free to have their opinion, but that's not in line with WP:NOTE or WP:BIO, with the exception of WP:IGNORE of course.  And many news anchor persons and weather reporters/metorologists do have their own articles when they fit the notability criterion. --Oakshade 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Nardman1 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the documentation provided by Oakshade, this individual appears to meet and exceed the bar set by our current WP:BIO guideline. (jarbarf) 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - this would pass WP:BIO, if the sources were reliable... Addhoc 19:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete unless reliably sourced, although this search appears to indicate notability, the sources are unreliable tabloids... Addhoc 19:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you only referring to The People newspaper? Or also the The News Letter and The Daily Mirror newspapers also cited? --Oakshade 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the UK press there is widespread acceptance that publications such as The Times are reliable, while The Sun isn't. Essentially, I would suggest The People and the The Mirror are fairly similar to The Sun and therefore unreliable. Addhoc 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just confused. Do you feel that if this person is the subject of an article in The Daily Mirror which has a circulation of over 4 million, that doesn't make the person notable? Or are you concerned with the content of the article about her being reliable?  --Oakshade 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:N, notability isn't newsworthiness and sources must be reliable. Tabloid journalism doesn't, in my view, qualify. 23:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But if someone is the subject of multiple non trivial published works, whether it's from a tabloid or not, they qualify as notable under WP:BIO.  If a extemely popular tabloid-like newspaper such as The Daily Mirror has an article about her, she's notable per WP:BIO.  --Oakshade 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In the second paragraph of WP:BIO it very clearly states that sources must be reliable. According to WP:RS a reliable secondary source is "the informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion". For the avoidance of doubt that isn't a description of UK tabloid journalism. Addhoc 23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oakshade seems to be arguing that being in a tabloid isn't evidence of notability, it creates notability (or else I don't see the relevance of the circulation figure, popularity, etc.).--Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's evidence of notability. And that she's the subject of a published work from a newspaper with circulation of over 4 million per day is irrelevant??  Sorry, but it's VERY relevant.  That the editors of a newspaper that millions of people read every day chose to run a story about this subject is not only evidence of notability, but strong evidence .  --Oakshade 00:00, 10 February 2007 (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.