Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Clugston


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Kathy Clugston

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Was originally a prod but removed as "Notability is on the grounds that she is broadcast to millions of listeners which might lead to natural curiousity (as in my case), the basic reason for an encyclopaedia", however I don't think that address the concern that the notability is not established to the degree required by Notability (people). The main problem is the lack of references to demonstrate notability. Of the three references cited, two are from the BBC raising concerns about their connection with the subject, and the other one is pretty trivial. Adambro (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep They enjoy fairly widespread coverage on the BBC and coverage from the BBC itself is certainly enough to meet any issue of WP:V. Notability is admittedly marginal, but IMHO does fall on the side of adequate (the comment on curiosity is also a good one). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no it isn't. It's a completely spurious argument.  There are many things that people may be curious about that are not currently parts of the general corpus of human knowledge.  Wikipedia is about what is known, not about what people want to know.  Uncle G (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So you dispute this article's ability to address what is known, i.e. WP:V? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote what I actually wrote, not something else. Uncle G (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Curiosity, and wishing to know something, certainly doesn't guarantee knowing it &mdash; but nor does it contradict it. This is an article that people might wish to know, it's also an article with adequate WP:V that we can robustly claim to know this. We have no problem with it on that score. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You prove my point for me. The comment on curiosity was not "a good one".  It was, as I said, spurious. Uncle G (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So what is your point? It appears to be that we can't reliably know anything about this person, which (if true) would certainly mean that we'd be unable to write about them. Your evidence for this seems to be that curiousity implies a lack of knowledge. Although we're often curious about the unknown, the converse that we're only curious about the unknown is a non sequitur. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have clearly and straightforwardly stated my point twice, now. This is the second time that you've put a different set of words into my mouth in response.  Please read the words actually written. Uncle G (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have stated that the argument is "spurious" and "not good", but provided nothing to back this up. You then went off on an irrelevant digression about the limits of knowledge: that is either a claim that this article is unverifiable or unknowable (false), or else it's an irrelevance. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I recently re-wrote a BLP about BBC announcer Sally Traffic after it was deleted. I found a lot of tabloid and trivial mention in sources, but also managed to find 20 or so fairly solid ones. I am betting a good editor who took their time could do that for Kathy Clugson but it takes time that most Wikipedia rescuers undevoted to their subject matter don't/won't commit to. Miami33139 (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd love to keep the article as not only is she a newsreader on Radio 4 but she also plays the ukulele. But... I can't find good sources. So I'm neutral. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep. Article's subject appears to meet bare minimum requirements of notability, per WP:BIO, in so much that there have been at least one source provided that is not connected to the subject, i.e. not the BBC. If additional sources can be found, I would change my statement to Keep. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:52, 9 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.