Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belinda Thorpe

Belinda Thorpe was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep

Australian Big Brother contestant. not notable Wolfman 08:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete this, and all big brother contestant articles. Lacrimosus 08:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The saga got a heck of a lot of publicity. I'm not an inclusionist and I can't stand Big Brother, but I still remember the media attention this one case got. Ambi 08:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Difficult call - not notable, but there's a benefit to wikipedia in accepting a small anmount of whoring for propularity. No vote - TB 10:47, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: I think we've gotten very popular already, and putting everyone in their :15 on Wikipedia really bugs me. Thousands of people a day appear on TV.  Geogre 12:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - if it was national news. - SimonP 14:50, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mikkalai 21:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was major news here.  Although I may be biased as I'm a (whats the opposite of a deletionist?) -- Chuq 03:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment:Opposite of a deletionist is an inclusionist, FWIW. Lacrimosus 21:25, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Click on 'discussion' tab above for long explanation. -- Beechmere 14:07, 24 Sep 2004 EAST. (UTC+10)
 * I've moved Beechmere's comments moved off the discussion page and back into this thread. Splitting the discussion makes the maintenance and documentation of decisions very difficult.  Rossami 15:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I created the entry for Belinda Thorpe, and my justification follows: The Big Brother series is, after all, a money-making exercise for the TV stations, the producers, the promoters, the sponsors, etc, etc.  It masquarades as entertainment, and it suceeds very well at that in most instances.
 * Belinda Thorpe caught the producers flat-footed. Her family criminal history slipped through the screening processes, and it was highly amusing to see the efforts of all the TV executives keep the show running, while trying to protect themselves legally and financially from the effects of the bombshell revelation (which was not actually screened on live-to-air TV, but over the internet live-feeds late at night).
 * The media blackout and denials that followed the incident were newsworthy in and of themselves - the source of viewer entertainment shifted from the contestants to the producers! Eventually, when Belinda volunteered to leave the show, rumours circulated that had she remained, the TV station could have lost its license by breaching Queensland state laws on juvenile privacy.
 * The entry should remain, because it serves to remind us Wikipedians of the cynicism of popular media and manipulation exercised by media corporations in the protection of their interests.
 * Delete: wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The attention of the national media is a poor heuristic for notability. -- WOT 20:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete:This is anecdotal now isn't it? Or has she done anything else since? Does she not deserve some privacy now? From an antipodean point of view this sounds a bit non-encyclopedic. And if this is to serve to show up the cynicism of popular media and manipulation, etc., wouldn't it be better to create a separate article for just that purpose? Dieter Simon 23:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. anthony (see warning) 19:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.