Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Coladangelo (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 was no consensus. Even after two relists, there appears to be no clear consensus on whether to keep or delete this article. No prejudice against re-nominating this in another few months time if more in-depth sources do not become available. Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Gina Coladangelo
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject is notable only for her relationship with the politician Matt Hancock which can be dealt with in his article. She has no independent notability. If you exclude her family and her relationship with Hancock, what is left is very minor indeed. This page exists primarily as a coatrack for a politically-motivated attack on Matt Hancock, the former British health minister, who is currently appearing in a reality TV program and has been criticised for his performance during the recent pandemic. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women,  and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect: Agree with the nominator, subject is not independently notable. Information is already covered in Matt Hancock's article. --92.15.144.174 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree; continuing coverage and allusions, e.g. Private Eye.
 * — FlashSheridan (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep For reasons given by FlashSheridan above.  On a side note, Philafrenzy objects to Companies House being cited as the source for her date of birth because it is "a primary source."   Surely her birth certificate is the primary source.   Yes or no? 91.216.181.11 (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Dates of birth at Companies House are self-reported by the filer and therefore are primary sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Has anything changed since the last AFD? It was a clear Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and create a redirect to a section of Matt Hancock. Not independently notable, and the article borders on an attack on Coladangelo, as much as or more than on Hancock as the nominator suggests. At the previous AfD, much was made of insinuations in the press that Hancock's appointing her as an NHS advisor was sleazy in view of her background as a lobbyist; I see this point is in the article, including discussion of her pay, so if this was indeed big in the press prior to the events that led to Hancock's resignation, perhaps that should also be mentioned in his article and the redirect lead to the COVID-19 pandemic section. But it does not appear to have attracted sufficient coverage among other similar topics alleging sleaze until the June 2021 exposé that led to his resignation, so that section of his article is probably a better target. Nor does that blip of coverage of Hancock's hiring her make an adequate second point of notability, and there do not appear to be any other reasons for notability: her career has not otherwise attracted extended coverage, her father's purported wealth, her uncle, and her marriage are all clearly not points of notability, so what we have is a negative-leaning near-BLP1E. Her name is a legitimate search target but the encyclopaedic information about her can be adequately conveyed at the Hancock article. (In view of 's !vote, I searched for evidence of an exposé in Private Eye covering more than the lockdown clinch; merely being mentioned there, no matter how frequently, doesn't indicate notability. Repeated name-dropping is after all what they do. If there is Private Eye coverage with new information that contributes to her notability, please indicate what it uncovers so that a citeable source can be found.) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is substantial ongoing coverage specifically about her, e.g. . She is pictured on the front page of today's Mail . The nominator apparently wants to merge the article with another article. So do it. Merge the article and create a redirect, if you think that is the correct editorial decision. No need to nominate for deletion. Cmeiqnj (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All three of those are tabloids whose use as references is deprecated here. Is there any such coverage—of her quitting her job and future plans, etc.—in reliable sources? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: A couple more sources from the last couple of days here
 * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gina-coladangelo-the-real-breakout-star-of-i-m-a-celebrity-89h6lbg22
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gina-coladangelo-matt-hancock-celeb-b2236852.html
 * Cmeiqnj (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * These are both her talking about Hancock - i.e. not really about her in her own right. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:NOTINHERIT, all the coverage seems to be about her and Hancock. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2022 (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.