Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Baillie


 * 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 I've been bold and moved the article to Russell Brand prank calls row per WP:BLP1E. The news story is now highly notable in the UK, with Prime Minister and BBC involved, and we should have an article on that. Whether the victim is independently notable is something we should discuss later when the dust is settled a bit.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed this close and endorse it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Georgina Baillie

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Classic WP:BLP1E, no notability even asserted outside this small brou-ha-ha. Rodhull andemu  15:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC) ---
 * Keep People look to Wikipedia to provide accurate information. The information appears accurate and I would not be the first person to visit Wikipedia expecting to find information about someone who is making headline news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoatridge (talk • contribs) 07:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The notability of Satanic Sluts Extreme (who according to their website have performed at Download and Glastonbury festivals among others), combined with this event seem sufficient to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specialknives (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even though this article very obviously needs a great deal of work, this person is notable for more than one event in my opinion, even though the article does not mention other events yet. To cite a different example that the one Specialknives mentioned above, the Daily Mail states that she recently played a prostitute/glamour model in a high profile TV pilot comedy/drama called Trollops of Threadneedle Street . --C 1 (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable. Having a mention in another article would suffice, not enough information about the person (its mainly about the prank call) to warrant an article Jujubean55 (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; all sources are in reference to the Brand/Ross debacle, pushing this firmly into the territory governed by WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT. Everything that is really worth saying about this incident is already said in the relevant articles... she doesn't appear to be notable outside of that.  one brave  monkey  17:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - clear case of WP:BLP1E. The only sources demonstrating her 'notability' are connected with the Russell Brand story. (Arguably, there's a privacy argument for deletion here as well.) Terraxos (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Could be implemented as a sentence in either Ross' or Brand's pages, or perhaps both. The Prime Minister may have passed comment, but I doubt anyone will still care in a few months. LiamUK (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable. uFu (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Very clearly not notable. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Baillie deserves no publicity for this, there is no reason for us as an encyclopaedia to participate in a profile-raising media stunt. Rovaniemi-5 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable enough to be a scandal. And I suspect we will hear more of her soon.Sparten (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Then sure, when it happens; until then, policy applies. -- Rodhull andemu  23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, somewhat reluctantly, but she is now well known. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this was a very high profile incident, she deserves recognition as a significant figure in this business. Do I detect a moralistic tone in Rovanienem-5 comments? PatGallacher (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete article was created in response to a single incident in which this young girl was an unwilling victim of nasty antics by famous celebrities. That incident can and is be recorded on the existing biographies of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand. The article fails WP:BLP1E and any test of basic human dignity, since there is little more notable about her than her victim status, and tabloid newspapers dredging up other stuff in response. The argument that she's notable outside of that is bollocks. The article was created in response to the current scandal in which she was an unparticipating vicim, and you can't escape that fact. We didn't have an article before the victimisation, and the victimisation should not be allowed to change that fact. If, and it is a big if, she could justify an article on other grounds, then let us consider that if someone wants to write it in a few months when the media furore passes. The problem here is that we seem to have thrown WP:NOTNEWS out of the window, and people now immediately create biographies in response to passing news stories, and then try to justify them on unrelated notability grounds. Let's start being an encyclopedia and not a newspaper, delete this - and debate any other claim to notability (if there is one) when it isn't lame excuse to get another biography written about a victim's 15 min of tabloid hell.--(Is this a "moralistic tone"? Hell, yes!) Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep First of all, there is no such thing as a "strong delete", and second of all, I did find the page useful and interesting, for example the fact that she recently appeared in a film. Because of reading this, I might be interested to see the film now, and make up my ming regarding this whole situation. Third of all, I don't think it's very relevant to discuss matters on an encyclopaedia with words like "bollocks". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.51.22 (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - it's certainly created a media storm. It's not really relevant to this article, but see here, where the BBC's "Have Your Say" messageboard has gone into meltdown. 10,553 commnets so far (5315 published and 5075 awaiting moderation - as of time of writing). Compare that to the next most popular ones (on the Syria incident and the credit crunch) with 2112 and 1932 comments respectively. The next ones down have less than 100 comments each! Carcharoth (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, classic example of a BLP1E, and otherwise not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The issue isn't whether Wikipedia should censor itself to protect her dignity, such as User:Scott MacDonald proposes, it's whether this woman is notable enough to warrant an entry in Wikipedia. At the moment her notability just shot through the roof due to the antics of Brand & Ross. People are going to be trying to find out more about her, as I just did, and that is the purpose an encyclopedia. As to those who say we should delete this article because she is only going to be notable for a fortnight, a tropical storm may only last that long but it is still considered notable and that's the because of the effects such a storm has. The media storm ot which Georgina Baillie is at the centre, is in all likelihood going to have serious ramifications on Brand, Ross and of course herself not to mention changes in how such "comedy" is regulated by Ofcom. 82.45.20.201 (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The moment I read about this I turned to Wikipedia for unbiased and factual information on the subject. It was of course heart-warming (but perhaps predictable) to get to the article and find the customary crowd of Deletionists already hard at work trying to suppress the material because of its populist leanings.  My own view is that the existing material is short and concise and whilst it probably does not deserve to be any longer at this stage, it is worthy of retention. Kind regards--  Cala braxthis  (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, without prejudice to an early relisting. Whilst this is, presently looking rather BLP1E-ish, it is a huge story in the UK, and looks like running further. I suspect that (publicity stunt or not) this young lady may become notable in the next couple of weeks. As such, it would seem to be sensible to hang fire on a deletion decision for a couple of weeks. Mayalld (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely that's the wrong way about. We don't keep a nasty article on someone until we see if we have justification for doing so. We disallow news (WP:NOT news) - and then, once time gives some perspective, we can allow an article if notability beyond the three-day news cycle exists. Otherwise what is WP:NOTNEWS about.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Classic example of an article which relates to "news now" and therefore has notability, but which should eb revisisted in 6 months' time, to see whether the notability has endured. -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, It is a huge story in the UK, and her character has become a factor in this rather nasty affair. I doubt it is a publicity stunt at least from her side. In the short term it seems right to keep the entry. Longer term it may be better to merge it into the article on the main Brand/Ross affair. Cerddaf (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - see WP:BLP1E Widefox (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreeing with what some have said above, I came to Wikipedia hoping that I'd be able to find information on this person other than what the UK tabloids have been publishing, which so far seems heavily slanted towards the villains and victims approach to reporting those recent events. As I now see, there was no article until this incident hit the press, and as such I can see why some would like this article removed under the notability guidelines. It's for a wider debate rather than this page, but I personally don't see why minor celebrities should be excluded from Wikipedia anyway - it's not as if it's a printed publication and the page count needs to be trimmed. If this story goes the way of most storms of this nature, the lady in question will be forgotten by most of us in six months, although she'll no doubt be mentioned in any stories about her grandfather for some time to come. But as much as people are saying delete the article because it is only here in relation to a short-lived news story, I feel that in many ways makes it more important that there is a place on Wikipedia for this person. Wikipedia should be one place where information on her is available in ten years' time should she become newsworthy again. That's regardless of whether all of this is a publicity stunt. sideiron (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggestion. This is now becoming a major news story in the UK, with questions parliament, and an investigation on the BBC as to how this ever got broadcast. There are calls for celebrities employed by the BBC to be sacked. However, the story is NOT about the victim, who fails WP:BLP1E but about a telephone call made by a celebrity, to her far more famous grandfather. I suggest moving this to Russell Brant Prank Calls Row, which it the title that the BBC news site is currently using.See right column. We should cover this, and not tabloid crap about how the victim may have once auditioned for topless modelling.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2008 (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.