Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belinda Thorpe (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was Redirect to Big Brother (Australian TV series). — Feb. 28, '06 [11:07] 

Belinda Thorpe
Barely survived Vfd a year and a half ago here. I remember the incident and it deserves a mention at Big Brother (Australian TV series) which it already has, but the persons name is not remembered and nn. The creation of the article could be called bad faith because of the opinion of the creator who wrote at the last afd that "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." which is no reason to keep an article -- Astrokey44 |talk 05:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Her time in the public eye, brief as it was, has passed. Worth a brief mention in the article on the Australian version of Big Brother but not a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 06:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC) "
 * Delete The minor in question was actually going to school with me at the time. I didn't know them that well, but as you can imagine, the school was ripe with gossip. That being said, I don't think that the event should be covered in such depth. A mention on the aussie BB page should suffice. Bobby1011 06:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect -- to Big Brother (Australian TV series) - Longhair 06:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Big Brother (Australian TV series), as there is already a fair amount of information on her and the incident she was involved in. Cnwb 06:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Big Brother (Australian TV series) and blank the text on this page. This appears to be a notable event in the programme rather than a notable biography.  (aeropagitica)   07:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Roisterer 08:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Big Brother (Australian TV series). --Ter e nce Ong 14:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per aeropagitica. This person is not notable and after she voluntarily left the house she vanished from public view, so does not need an article of her own. Some of this information should be rolled into the main Big Brother article as the crime revelation as well as her voluntary departure from the house have proved to be unique and notable incidents in Australian Big Brother. Asa01 19:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per prior AFD. There is no basis for a renomination.  There's clear precedent of keeping Big Brother contestants.  Even if there hadn't been a prior AFD, being on a hit national show warrants inclusion. --Rob 19:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theres only precedent of keeping notable Big Brother contestants. Not many of the List of past Big Brother Australia housemates have their own articles. She only gets 45 unique googles -- Astrokey44 |talk 22:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was considering precedent in one country (US) to apply to others, despite the disparity in country/show size. FOr BB6 in the US, the winner (before she won) and the bottom two players were all AFD'd, and were all kept.  Lack of an article is not precedent for an article (AFD keeps are).  BB contestants in general, like Idol finalist, and Survivor contestants, simply aren't being deleted anymore.  Those without content are being temporarily merged/redirected.  But that's a matter of current content, not notability, and not a deletion issue.  There's been, as of late, a general acceptance of notability of BB contestants.    As for your Google Test, I see an adequate supply of different sources.  I'm getting a little tired of explaining flaws and misues of the Google test.  People see so many absurdly high bogus numbers, that when they see a moderate number, they to fail understand its meaning.  As a story grows older, "free web" stories in newspapers go "offline" into fee-charging archives, but that doesn't mean the person is less notable.  It means we should rely less on Google (note: I've voted delete, despite Google counts in the hundreds of thousands).  Wikipedia should not be as transitory as Google results.  Also, I submit, that if I treat this person like an actor on the show, she'd pass WP:BIO (as the contestants are stars of the show).  And getting back to precendent:  I think this is a pretty relevant precedent. --Rob 00:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Rob. Jcuk 22:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to Big Brother. Xtra 13:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the relevant Big Brother series. Stifle 15:50, 23 February 2006 (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.