Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Harries


 * 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 to delete; default to KEEP. -  Philippe 21:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lauren Harries

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

I believe this to be not notable enough for inclusion per our guidelines. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, I wouldn't have nominated it myself but am reluctant to oppose nomination. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Change my vote to Support based on new version which includes multiple sources of her notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, entirety of notability appears to be "was on a chat show as a child", "is a transsexual", and "once got beaten up". Neıl ☎  00:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Neil, you said exactly what I was going to write. Harries' appearance on Wogan is so non-notable that he isn't mentioned in our article. Transsexualism and violence toward transsexuals is not notable in and of itself, perhaps sadly. Risker (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In fairness I think the BBC would have covered the case without her having been on Wogan as they cover tens of such cases each day. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps true, Squeakbox. I was referring to the fact that our article on the television show Wogan doesn't mention Harries' appearance, suggesting his presence was relatively unimportant. Risker (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the number of people who have appeared on Wogan, the overwhelming majority were celebs, doubt anyone would be mentioned in Wogan's article unless they murdered the crowd.... Minkythecat (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That suggests, then, that being on Wogan isn't a guaranteed metric of notability. I'd hasten to point out, I've been on TV several times now, (interviewed about one thing or another) and I'm not notable by any stretch of the imagination. ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Wogan article is rather short, and can't by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as comprehensive. The lack of a mention there is meaningless, particuarly as Wikipedia can't reference itself. PC78 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * delete - we should have a WP:BLP2E to cover cases where someone's name is in the news for several unrelated things but those don't really establish notability even combined --Random832 (contribs) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Per nom and Neil... delete ... textbook example of a BLP we should not have. ++Lar: t/c 02:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * strong keep notable as a child with an appearance on the BBC and is mentioned in 'where are they now' shows on tele to show his transformation, only last year. It's late now so I'll do more tomorrow, but 59 google news articles   special, random, Merkinsmum 03:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So this person is notable... why exactly? Notable for being notable? ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * She's been in newspaper articles and on the telly. Call it a 'media personality', and perhaps model?  And transexual:)  It's no different from many 'celebrities' these days, many don't have to do anything involving talent.  special, random, Merkinsmum 03:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can reflect that in the article I will certainly reconsider my vote, especially having myself already done my best to at least make it a decent article in the style sense. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Zero claim to notability. What you have is a media appearance base upon expertise on antiques - which has been shown to have been rehearsed.  You've then someone who changed sex.  A couple of documentaries on TV, all of which had the "oh, look this person's a bit odd" feel to them, was attacked and errm, that's it.  Sorry, there's zero notability in any of those points.  If you include based upon the antiques bit, then you can justify including anyone from silly end news stories.  The changing sex, well, quite a few people have had such operations, can't see everyone in here.  Documentaries don't in themselves lend any credibility, especially when the aim is degredation.  People attacked? well, with the number of chavs in Britain, not notable. Lauren Harries is an extreme self-promoter with zero achievements in life.  At least, no achievements that would qualify for an entry in a real encyclopedia, which this laughably claims to be.  Heat magazine, sure. Encyclopedia Brittanica, never. Minkythecat (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Television appearances over an extended period (20 years) strongly suggest at least fringe notability as a media personality. Article is sourced, references look good. PC78 (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Think LOL is the best response. Wogan appearance, THE most notable and indeed only claim to fame - unsourced. Channel 4 documentary - which, if you'd watched it, was extracting the urine - unsourced.  Channel Five show - unsourced.  Only sourced TV appearance... oh wait, something that may or may not happen.  The only other references apply to the personal life section, and that's specifically to an assault.  One of which is actually the result of the trial... please refactor your keep rationale... Minkythecat (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Think "Sod off" is the best response. Did you bother to look at any of the refs or external links? Wogan is mentioned in one of the refs and also the Guardian interview, while the Kieth Allen documentary is mentioned in another. While I have no taste for "celebrities" who are famous for being famous, such people tend to be prevalent in this day and age, and to my eyes there is enough here on Lauren Harries to satisfy WP:BIO. PC78 (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Think WP:CIVIL is the better response. Whilst Wogan may be referenced, it's in a powder puff interview with the Guardian. And indeed contradicts the text in the wiki article. All your amazing sources appear to be are a single interview, which by it's very nature is hardly impartial or objective.  The rest refer to the assault case; oh wait, and a Lauren harries wiki style page full of self-promotion.  You may be satisfied by Harries, but unless you can provide more substantive, independent sources, you're reaching. Minkythecat (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment was hardly brimming with civility either, so don't try and throw that at me. There's nothing wrong with the Guardian interview as a source, and here's a couple of proper articles about the Keith Allen documentary. The bottom line is this: Harries is (just about) notable, the article asserts notability, and sources exist (here's a few more for good measure:, , , , ). That's good enough for me. Your arguments, on the other hand, tend to smack of IDON'TLIKEIT. PC78 (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the links you posted? All of which either refer to Wogan - at age 12, not 10 as the Wiki article states.  The newspaper articles focus upon Harries sex change... oh, and being beaten up.  Kindly provide something that's notable other than those 3 elements?  A BLP should exist for all Wogan guests, hmmm?  For all people who change sex? For all victims of assault?  You've provided zero evidence for any notability other than having changed sex and been beaten up. It's clear true encyclopedic content.  Minkythecat (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, my initial keep comment was based on media appearances over a twenty year period. So far we have Wogan (sourced), the Keith Allen documentary (sourced), the Big Brother non-appearance (sourced), Trust Me, I'm A Beauty Therapist, and a possible future show (again, sourced). Add to that the sex change and assault (both with ample sources), yet another article , and you have plenty that satisfies WP:BIO. Now you can ignore all that, debunk it, whatever, because I'm tired of repeating myself and will say no more on the subject. PC78 (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Citing bizarre mag et al interviews is merely propagating the Paris Hilton line of notability; famous for being Paris Hilton. Far from a continued 20 years of notable publicity, you've a) the single Wogan appearance. b) Years of silence. c) A well publicised sex change. d) numerous articles you've not referenced referring to "Lauren falling in love..." all utterly non notable. d) A "documentary" which existed solely to poke fun at Lauren. e) An assault. f) Totally minor television appearances where Lauren was used solely as "freak" interest.
 * The sole notable incident in Lauren's life was the Wogan appearance; everything since then has solely rested upon the sex change and the impact since. Everything allegedly notable has stemmed solely from the blurring of personal and self-publicised life. Minkythecat (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to make a case for Paris Hilton being non-notable, then be my guest. Unfortunately the threshold for fame is depresingly low, which is why we have articles on the likes of Faria Alam, a woman famous only for shagging someone who was actually famous. You may not like it, I may not like it, but that's really besides the point. PC78 (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire above discussion loses no meaning at all without the first sentence of every comment, and would have been a lot more pleasant on the eye. No more snippy back and forth from either one of you; please restrict your comments to the discussion at hand. Neıl ☎  09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete  An interesting instance of the bankruptcy of our N=2RS rule in Notability (people) There is nothing actually notable in any non-WP sense of the word, but there is media publicity in RSs including the Guardian for the trivial accomplishments. If we mean  what the text says, that "anyone at all with the sources is presumed to be notable," the article must go in. Frankly, I don;t think we mean it literally, and it's time we revised WP:N to say what we mean, which I think is that having 2 RS is a factor, not a presumption of notability, relevant when there's no other usable criterion. Here the usable criterion is that the accomplishments are trivial. DGG (talk)
 * Comment - User:Nousernamesleft closed this AFD after just 24 hours or so and deleted the article.  Deletion policy states AFDs run for 5 days; I have undone the close and restored the article for the duration of the deletion discussion. Neıl  ☎  17:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * he's deleted the talk page! lol I'm going to actually discuss improving the article there. <b style="color:#FF1493">special, random, </b><b style="color="#FF1493">Merkinsmum</b> 17:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, missed the talk page. Restored. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  17:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * comment- I don't get it, how can it be claimed this person is not notable? She has been the subject of articles in the Guardian, the Independent and other serious reliable sources.  That is what we mean by notability, -being noted in reliable sources and verifiability of the contents of the article by those sources. <b style="color:#FF1493">special, random, </b><b style="color="#FF1493">Merkinsmum</b> 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It is always better to have information, than not have it. The subject of this article is notable. TharkunColl (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Not quite a BLP1E, but marginally notable for two distinct things. Tough call, but lean towards weak keep. Lawrence § t/e  17:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This won't be the last we see of her, as she's really keen to be on television etc, and she's interesting enough to meet the needs of modern reality tv. <b style="color:#FF1493">special, random, </b><b style="color="#FF1493">Merkinsmum</b> 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

comment I have added a little about her involvement with the big brother shows, complete with four sources. Hope this helps. <b style="color:#FF1493">special, random, </b><b style="color="#FF1493">Merkinsmum</b> 00:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There were five already, so there are now eight reliable sources for this person's article, I'm not sure about the ninth one listed:) Although that one has info favourable to her. So- this person and article has numerous reliable sources, 8 are given for this article's content, some include full length interviews.  That's pretty incontravertable notability  and verifiability.<b style="color:#FF1493">special, random, </b><b style="color="#FF1493">Merkinsmum</b> 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * unless i misread the article, the point of this is that she did not go on Big Brother. This may be commendable, but I don't think it's notable. DGG (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * that's not for us to judge whether the fact is notable. It was considered notable by several WP:RS sources that she was very likely to go into the house.  The reasons why she didn't go in were interesting and notable- one way or another, and were discussed in sources.  You could look at the source or google for further speculations.:)  It's not derogatory to mention that this person was considered at the time to be some source's strong guess or assumption that she would enter the house- and it is worth briefly mentioning as something sources have discussed about her.  The 'big brother' show was something which at the time a lot of everyday people followed intensely in the UK, and valued every in and out.  She was also a regular on Big Brother's Big Mouth, which wasn't mentioned in the last version of the article.  If this is deleted, I will save it in my user space and add more as she gets upto more, until she's eventually been on telly etc enough to be more solidly notable- though I think she is already due to being known to everyday people in the UK from her childhood appearances, as well as people being amused (or annoyed) by her more recent appearances on telly.  To the extent that several dozen reliable sources chronicle her exploits. <b style="color:#FF1493">Merkin's</b>  <b style="color:#FF1493">mum</b> 19:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the fact *somebody* was going in was notable. The same amount of media attention would be gained from anybody, so you can't claim notability to harries over that.  Reasons for not going in? Well, the Jade Goody racism kinda meant putting harries in wasn't going to happen as everyone had to be on best behaviour -which shows you the rationale for Harries being in. Aside from that OR, the reasons for not going in were interesting? Allegedly because no nappies would be provided? Off topic again, I don't exactly think you can claim a reliable source for a BLP which, you know, refers to the living person as an "oddball". You seriously believe putting sources in like that are applicable for a BLP?  A regular on BBBM? No - wasn't on every show, did appear on a few.  Equally, does that mean anyone who appeared on more than one BBBM episode in a series are thus also notable?  Please don't presuppose everybody in the UK would recognise Harries - clue, not many would. Go out and conduct a straw poll, think you'll find a minimal amount of people would.  The kind of people who believe Hello magazine to eb an encyclopedia... :p Minkythecat (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you're presupposing about whether people would know who she was. :) PC78 (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Minky ? I didn't call her an oddball and the article doesn't mention that.  Some sources might say what the want and we don't have to, for NPOV, and simply included what was reported in WP:RS rather than their opinion/editorializing .  If Big Brother didn't provide what she needed, that reflects badly on them rather than her, and she was comfortable with discussing it herself. <b style="color:#FF1493">Merkin's</b>  <b style="color:#FF1493">mum</b> 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Try reading reference 11 then. "SEX swap diva Lauren Harries is threatening to pull out of Celebrity Big Brother - unless she can take in nappies. The oddball transsexual has sported diapers since surgery to change gender from child prodigy James five years ago."... reference originally sourced from the Daily Star. A great paper who broke the excusive of a bus. A bus on the moon.  Ah well, it'll be kept, I'm sure, people acn reflect on such a great job they've done in contributing to an encyclopedia... Minkythecat (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This person is well remembered by many members of the British public and this article is certainly of interest as an answer to one of those "whatever happened to...?" type questions. Jooler (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "whatever happened to..." is usually an admission of lack of notability. DGG (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your assertion is incorrect. "whatever happened to..." almost invariably means someone who had achieved notability at some point in the past. For example whatever happened to Merhan Karimi Nasseri; what ever happened to Eddie "the Eagle" Edwards and what ever happened to Gary Coleman.  Jooler (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and of course, notability is not temporary.PC78 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but in her case the answer to 'what ever happened to..' is known, so we can provide people with useful info they might not otherwise have known. And she's not just got past notability but is still sometimes in the press or on telly, so we can update whenever she does something new that is covered, and add to the article. <b style="color:#FF1493">Merkin's</b>  <b style="color:#FF1493">mum</b> 14:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are plenty of WP:RS referenced. WP:N is easily met. <b style="color="#990066">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6"> Sing 18:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- <b style="color="#990066">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6"> Sing  18:41, 13 April 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.