Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Carr


 * 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 Bushranger One ping only 20:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Lucy Carr

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Subject request: "I am Lucy Carr, this article holds personal and incorrect information regarding myself. I would like it to be removed. This information is 10 years old and I do not wish it to be on this site. Please understand my request for deletion. Thanks. Ladymanor13" I am neutral on the subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficient claim to notability with Top 40 hits. I see no information that is harmful. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as a borderline notable Top 40 artist. We have no way at this time to verify whether Ladymanor13 is or is not the subject. I recommend WP:OTRS as a way to verify your identity. If you are the subject, perhaps a better solution is to suggest corrections on the talk page or at WP:BLPN where biography specialists will pitch in to help.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I expect the subject's concern was with some tabloid gossip that I have removed from the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I can understand Lucy Carr being embarrassed about her association with Peter Stringfellow, who's well known in the UK as a strip-club owner and lothario, but I don't think she can remove every reference to her past life from the internet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not responsible for the rest of the Internet, but we are responsible for the top-ranked Google hit about the the subject, and need to remember that responsibilty. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject was signed to a significant label, received coverage from the BBC and released two charting singles, so qualifies as WP:MUSBIO. I would point the article's subject towards WP:PROUD. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  09:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of WP:PROUD? I see no evidence that the subject created the article or otherwise encouraged its existence. And what is the significance of the record label? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The salient point in that page is, when somebody deems you are notable enough to appear on Wikipedia, you can't come along and request the page gets deleted just because what other people decide is notable happens to be something in the past you'd personally rather forget about. In fact, it's counterproductive as it attracts unwanted attention. I had never heard of Ms Carr before, but because I occasionally scan musician / band articles in AfD I now do. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  10:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing the whole point of WP:PROUD, which is that if an article subject deems she is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia, she can't come along and request the page gets deleted, not if somebody deems this. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of "Miscellaneous things to be aware of" in that essay explains what I'm talking about. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  09:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, that section is part of our advice to people considering creating articles about themselves, which Lucy Carr has not done. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The first sentence says, verbatim, "If you do not push to have an article about you on Wikipedia, but one was created without your involvement"! That's exactly what's happened here. Anyway, I'm done with splitting hairs. You win. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  10:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, for the reasons cited by Ritchie333. I don't know what Ms. Carr thinks is incorrect about this, let alone offensive, and the article does her the courtesy of not quoting the part from the BBC article about "ex-lapdancer girlfriend", which is more reticent than I would have been.  We all have a past, and two charting singles is considerably less of a cross than others must bear.  Ubelowme (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP, and I would say that whether or not Carr had requested deletion, so no OTRS validation is required for me to support deletion. Scraping into a music chart is not a strong anough claim of notability to mean that we should keep an article that was clearly created to spread tabloid-style tittle-tattle rather than for any genuine encyclopedic purpose. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have directed Lucy Carr to OTRS so that she can verify her identity, although it would seem to be in little doubt. I would suggest that anyone who thinks that the wish to keep an article based on a couple of very minor charting records overrides genuine concerns about harm to the subject consider what she has written on her user page. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way was the article "clearly" created to spread tabloid gossip? I'm not seeing it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The page, as created, said that the subject was most famous for being the long-term girlfriend of someone famous for being famous. If the thing that she is most famous for doesn't confer notability then how can less fame-inducing things do so? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC) I must add that is a first - I don't think there's ever previously been an AfD where Ten Pound Hammer has !voted "keep" and I have !voted "delete". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, if only there were some way we could remove potentially polemic info from an article. You'd think by now they'd make this place so that content can be edited. (Seriously, though — even if it were initially created to spread gossip on someone, said gossip is no longer in the article, so the original intent is immaterial. Should the earlier edits with the gossip in them prove problematic, they can be delrev'd.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have edited the article, including removing references to tabloid-style sources (yes, even the BBC spreads gossip) that are not needed for verification, but another editor promptly restored one of the links, showing that the effort needed to ensure that such links don't reappear outweighs any encyclopedic benefit from the article. If we had sources meeting the standard of the general notability guideline then I would certainly not call for deletion, but all we have is a couple of very brief gossipy news articles and the bare confirmation from Guinness that the subject reached numbers 28 and 41 in the charts at a time when sales of physical singles (remember them?), on which the charts were then based, were very low. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At what point have the links been re-added? I've never seen them come up. ETA: I see you mean this link, which does not look harmful or overly gossip-y to me. WP:BAND does not make arbitrary inclusions or exclusions based on chart positions, but I think it can be agreed 100% of the time that anyone who ever had a Top 40 hit in a country the size of the UK is notable, bar none. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are sources which seem to suggest she meets the general notability guideline, including but not limited to this, this, this, and this. She also meets the guidelines at WP:NMUSIC by virtue of her charting singles. The inaccuracies that were present are indicative of lazy editing, but not a reason to delete the article, nor is the fact that the subject is no longer in the public eye. As TPH says, any problematic earlier edits can be del-revved. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Some pre-release publicity pieces and an interview. Have you actually done the thought experiment of seeing how much of a Wikipedia biography could be wrung out of what you cited?  I did, because I found those myself.  There's not much to be made from them.  Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral The article doesn't seem to violate WP:BLP I think although the subject may not be very notable in the music industry. Is the information out of date? That's a hard call. However, if there are more recent sources for her, feel free to add them to this article and maybe this article can be kept. Having a Top 10 or Top 41 song does give one some degree of notability, I would think. --Artene50 (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a dead easy call, if one actually puts the effort in to look and do the research. The relationship &mdash; pretty much the only context in which this person was publicly documented in the first place &mdash; has been over for more than eight years, and there's no public record of this person in the years since.  Whether or not Ladymanor13 is the subject at hand, what Ladymanor13 says appears to be true.  This subject has been a private individual wholly out of the public eye since 2004.  There are no more recent sources.  There was an old photograph dug up when Stringfellow married someone else, and that's it. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:MUSIC with charting and WP:GNG with a lot of coverage about her. Since most coverage focuses mostly on her relationship with Stringfellow so should this article. Wikipedia is not here to write your prefered version of history or to censor your past. Carr put it out there and supplied some of the gossipy details herself, as in  and . duffbeerforme (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's not a given that Carr "put it out there" as you describe - more likely a journalist managed to talk to her and spin something out of it. However, if the newspaper is a reliable source (personally I'd question the Mail being truthfully accurate about the weather without some hidden agenda, let alone anything else, but that's just me), and multiple ones covered the same story, that could make it worthy of mention here. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  09:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Both Stringfellow and Carr have long since stated for the record that Carr was misrepresented by the journalist in that Mail on Sunday piece. Carr stated it on 2004-05-09, the week after, and Stringfellow stated it in an interview on 2006-02-10.  If that source is the primary foundation upon which you're building a case for notability, Duffbeerforme, then you should be aware that both parties actually involved dispute its factual accuracy.  Your argument that Wikipedia would be "censoring the past" if it didn't do anything but slavishly follow a Mail on Sunday piece that the people involved both say to be a misrepresentation by the journalist, is a fairly duff idea.  Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, not based just on that. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews
 * short single reviews


 * Are you seriously suggesting that the likes of the Daily Star, The Sun, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Record are reliable sources of the standard required for an article about a living person? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah i over did the show sources without checking credibility. Some still survive. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These sources show she spectacularly passes GNG requirements, it does not mean we should use all them for the article. Cavarrone (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete, the subject meets the letter of WP:MUSIC, but I'd argue not the spirit of that guideline. The majority of the coverage cited here is of the trashy tabloid variety that is factually disputed by pretty much everyone involved, presumably causes real world harm or distress to the subject, and probably shouldn't be included in the article at any rate.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC).
 * I don't think anyone's proposing to add the content cited by the tabloids. The best you could really do is say "In 2004, several tabloid papers alleged that Carr did 'x' with 'y', but this was found to be without merit". Or something like that. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  09:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What sources would you suggest we use for such a statement? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The tabloid sources could be used to provide a secondary source for hearsay and rumour - assuming you think such things are worthy of mention in the article, which I personally don't. -- Ritchie333   (talk)  10:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per clearly passing WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2012 (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.