Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicity Barr


 * 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   keep. The subject's biography, while not unsourced, certainly lacks the quality of sources one would like to see. However, consensus is to keep this article, and an alternative argument as to notability as been made and accept within this discussion. While this is a BLP, it is not negative in tone, and does the subject no harm. I would encourage those interested in this article to find sources, however, as I suspect the outcome could be different on a subsequent nomination. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Felicity Barr

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 08:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep of course - surely this person has been nominated in error. Every football fan in the London knows who she is, she used to present Goals Extra. She was also presented ITV news regularly a few years ago. It's outrageous someone even considered nominating her for deletion. Tris2000 (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you're new to Wikipedia, so I'll take some time to explain how notability works. To qualify as notable (i.e., to warrant an article on Wikipedia), every topic/person/anything else has to satisfy the notability guidelines. The notability guidelines may differ for each specific topic, and the notability criteria for journalists is given at WP:CREATIVE. It would be helpful if you could spare a few minutes and go through the criteria. Of course, I'm just assuming good faith here. It's perfectly possible that you're more experienced in AfDs then I think, and that you genuinely feel this person is notable. If so, please point out the exact criterion which Felicity Barr satisfies, and please avoid arguments like "everyone knows who she is" and "it is outrageous nominating her for deletion". If you have any further queries you may post them here or on my talk page. Regards, ƒ(Δ)² 06:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not new to Wikipedia at all. Well, I guess it's how you define "new". I started editing in July 2003 and have created a few articles since then. I've also made 850 contributions/edits. So no, I'm not "new". I am aware of WP:CREATIVE. She is just simply too much of a well known figure, in my eyes, to merit deletion. She would present the news alongside Sir Trevor McDonald, certainly the most famous newsreader in Britain if not one of the most famous in the world. It's hard to think what more Felicity could do to make a name for herself. She is one of the few female SPORTS newsreaders out there. In case you are confusing our Felicity with someone else, check out some of the pics on Google images - you'll instantly recognise her, I am sure, and realise her importance on our small screen. --Tris2000 (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - she is possibly notable, but more sources would be helpful. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just the problem, you see. I don't see any sources indicating notability. ƒ(Δ)² 06:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that notability guidelines must be interpreted with a grain of salt and commonsense. Google searches show that, while there's indeed a lack of third party sources, she has had a remarkable TV career (her cv, her Al Jazeera page or her old ITV page. This means she is most probably a well known person by many and her career can be reliably enough documented by her CV and similar sources. As such I think she deserves a stub, and a tag to indicate that sources are needed, more than deletion. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I get your point (and Tris' above). It comes down to whether the policy should be followed to the letter. Perhaps WP:IAR is applicable here. Or perhaps a CV isn't a reliable source. Depends on your POV, I suppose. ƒ(Δ)² 10:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with CV is that it is a primary source. I agree that secondary sources are needed. However in a deletion debate I personally also consider if the information is truly worthless or not. In this case, we're not dealing with the everyday vanity page, but with a subject where a case for notability, even if not sanctioned by third-party sources, can be reliably established. For sure the article needs love and editors must be encouraged to find third-party sources, but deletion seems to me too drastic in this case. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. My stance differs from yours though. My opinion is that if no reliable sources can be found to justify notability, then a BLP should be deleted (even if, as you say, the primary source indicates notability). I tend to favor my deletionist side when dealing with BLPs. Maybe that's getting in the way here. ƒ(Δ)² 10:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I must first of all say it is a pleasure to talk with you. Even if we disagree, you're debating with utmost civility, and looking how bitter and blunt become many WP discussions, I am really happy of having met you. That said, well, I do not agree with what I perceive as a bit of paranoia on BLPs, but that's not the forum to discuss it. About the AfD, I'd say we should wait for more editors to jump in. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I won't say anything more on this topic. ƒ(Δ)² 11:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you should be welcome to intervene and further discuss whenever other editors participate and bring their arguments. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. The phrasing of the GNG is problematic with required to prominent journalists,especially TV journalists, compounding the difficulties in searching caused by the difficulty in crafting searches that distinguish between stories about them and stories covered by them. The guideline needs to be applied carefully rather than mechanically. For TV journalists, it would probably be better to apply an analog of WP:ENT. As famous and genuinely notable as he was, Walter Cronkite would probably have had GNG issues for most of his career. Clearly WP:IAR should be considered if a policy needs citation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to the closing admin Please refer to the discussion here. Consensus (6 vs 1 [where 1 is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]) is that WP:ENTERTAINER does not apply to journalists or TV newsreaders. ƒ(Δ)² 17:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a brief, low-profile discussion started and "closed" by you without even having the courtesy to notify me of the potential debate. It ignores the well-establish practice/consensus that more than one notability guideline (eg, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR) may apply to an article. And it never addresses what the guideline actually says, particularly with regard to "television personalities" and "opinion makers." Finally, that 6-1 "consensus" counts each of your posts as a separate !vote, which is pretty pathetic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still open, if you wish to comment there. I haven't closed it. I wanted a third opinion; I already know yours. Additionally (I've mentioned this before) I don't think multiple policies apply here at all so well-established practice or not, it doesn't apply here. At all. And finally, I'm not counting each of my own posts as a separate !vote, I'm counting the comments left by other editors in that discussion. Please get your facts straight. Cheers, <b style="color:#FF3030;">ƒ(Δ)²</b> 10:21, 8 October 2009 (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.