Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha Collins (second 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; default to keep. This AfD has run for 6+ days, there has been a previous AfD and a DRV, and there is no reason to believe that keeping the AfD open will result in a consensus. --MCB (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Natasha Collins
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was originally deleted at its first AfD. DRV overturned that result, in light of an insufficient closing rationale. The issues at stake remain the subject's notability, as well as concerns regarding WP:NOT the NEWS. Weak delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Redirect Weak keep would prefer to redirect to Mark Speight as her main notability seems to be that he was suspected of causing her death but am convinced by DGG. JJL (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And her acting caeer... Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:BIO1e may well be true for those with no notability outside of one event, but for those of borderline notability, one noteworthy event (e.g. a well publicized death) can raise the profile of the borderline dimensions of their life (which the references do comment on). WP:BLP does not apply to the recently dead, no matter how much some might like to apply it there. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable before her death. Lugnuts (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is, besides the fact of heracting career and car accident. You guys really aren't looking into the refs. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable apart from a few small TV roles, only claim to fame is a brief bit of media interest in her death due solely to her partners notability. RMHED (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, she was co-star of See It, Saw It. Sure her other roles were small, but doesn't thatone fact alone constitute notability? Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Her death was well publicised, which makes her notable. Brochco (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mark Speight . Delete (DGG makes a very good point below as to why this shouldn't be redirected - hadn't thought of that) Her death was unfortunatly the only notable thing about her. WP:NOT states that those that become the focus of news stories do not necessarily become notable, and I don't feel that previous to that she was notable. Talk Islander 21:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment She is perhaps a little more notable than a great deal of others who appear in the news, having had a minor television career prior to her death. Brochco (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Minor being the salient point. On its own, her TV career wasn't notable. On its own, her death wasn't notable. Do the two together make her notable? I don't think so, as the two are completely unrelated. Talk Islander 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Minor other than the fact that she was co-star on See It, Saw It, and her car Aaccident. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."The extensive media coverage of Natasha Collins in multiple reliable sources cited in Natasha_Collins clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. WP:NOT has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. Whatever the merits of ever raising WP:NOT in any deletion discussion without claiming serious WP:BLP issues, WP:NOT clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here.  Indeed, WP:NOT expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of Natasha Collins cited in Natasha_Collins would therefore suggest that this person is, indeed, an "encyclopedic subject".  The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence.
 * John254 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into Mark Speight per WP:BLP1E. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Natasha Collins is notable as a model and an actress. John254 03:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Mark Speight. She's yesterday's fish and chips wrapping.  Her very brief acting career doesn't represent a significant body of work.  The more recent coverage is due to her connection to Speight, not any inherent recognition; had she been living with an accountant, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. --Kife 11:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, it may still have received some press coverage because of her acting/modeling career - albeit a lot less attention than it did get. Anyway, for what it's worth, I would say keep as per John254. Paul20070 (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, perhaps redirect or merge and redirect. May be a useful search term after this minor news event, but she alone was not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and the details of her life are not very relevant. Just imagine that she was e.g. a nurse in some hospital. The articles listed would still give those details ("the victim, a 32 year old nurse from St. Pauls Hospital, ..."), just like they did here. The fact that her biography is very briefly sketched in those articles about Mark Speight is not evidence of some notability for her life, but standard procedure in such "suspicious death" articles. The focus in all these articles is clearly solely on Mark Speight, and thus I see no evidence that Natasha Collins is notable, or that we should have an article on her. Fram (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Since she wasn't a nurse in some hospital, but an actress/model, I fail to see the relevance of the above comment. I doubt the death of a nurse in similar circumstances, even if she were the girlfriend of an actor, would have received as much press coverage. Paul20070 (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the relevance is that none of the press coverage was because she was an actress / model, but because a "celebrity" (Speight) was perhaps involved in someone's death. It didn't matter if she was a librarian, an actress or a nurse, as is reflected in the articles on the event. As far as I have seen, there is not one single source that puts emphasis on the "she was an actress and model!" part, they just mention it in passing, just like they would mention other occupations in passing. There is not one article that starts with something like "Natasha Collins, known as an actress and a model, died last week". None. This indicates that she is not considered to be notable by the press. The sole focus of all these articles is Mark Speight. Fram (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I should probably have phrased that differently. Anyway, If she were a nurse, we wouldn't be debating her notability right now. I doubt the article would have been created at all, and even if it had been, it would probably have been speedily deleted within minutes - I would certainly mark such an article for speedy delete nomination if I came across it.
 * I'm not certain whether this article was created because of Mark Speight's possible involvement in the death, or because somebody did a bit of research and decided Natasha Collins was a celebrity in her own right. That being the case, it doesn't really matter what job Speight does, whether he's a plumber, an accountant or an actor. The issue at stake here, as I see it, is whether Collins was notable in her own right. I personally think there's an argument that says she was notable because she appeared in several different productions (not all of them listed, I hasten to add). I'm in favour of keeping, but it is a borderline issue really. Paul20070 (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, no problem with that. I disagree on her personal notability, but that's the nature of opinions and discussions of course... Fram (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets notability for her TV and movie work, independent of her death (which I ignored when I made my evaluation). 23skidoo (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Question What movie work? --Kife 14:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know, but according to this she did. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Acting in film" can mean anything from being a world-famous movie star (which she clearly wasn't) to being an extra. The Times is not what it was. Small roles in two mini-series and a supporting role in one children's television series still doesn't add up to a significant body of work. --Kife 20:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That constitutes borderline notability, and with the addition of her death makes her certainly notable. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. A spike in the news reporting on Mark Speight does not constitute "significant coverage".  Her death is not notable, in the Wikipedia sense.  --Kife 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The spike in the news itself is not notable, but with her borderline notability added to that it does. Of course the spike is significant coverage and I am pondering that odd statement. Anyway, since when has Wikipedia become the media? Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Wikipedia is not the media.  We are not bound to follow the popular press in starting articles which merely report the scandal of the day (in this case, the report of Speight's arrest).  Notability is not conferred by the brief popularity of a story; nor is it conferred solely by connection to a notable individual. --Kife 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How is Mark Speight any more notable than Collins? Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mark Speight is a very notable children's TV presenter. He's presented (not co-stared) SMart for its entire run; he does a lot of presenting on CBBC. Just look at his article for a number of reasons why he's notable, and I'm not including the arrest in that, 'cause on it's own that wouldn't make him notable. Talk Islander 12:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, Mark Speight may be more notable than Collins, but look at her article and all the television work she did before asking to delete. Her death in itself is not notable, nor is her television work, but the two combined make her notable. Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep There was no consensus to delete according to the previous AfD, and no new evidence has come to light since then. Wewouldn't even be having this arguement if Collins' article was not deleted. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete She was non notable in both life and death. I can't believe we're having this debate again with all the same arguments being batted to and fro. Brett Leaford (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no concensus to delete in the first place. Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There was concensus, it's simply that the closing admin left a rather weak closing statement, not making it clear how they reached their decision. Talk Islander 22:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, there was consensus to keep muckh more than ther was to delete. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect I didn't really have an opinion on this subject when I opened the previous afd debate, but having had time to reflect, I think a redirect to an appropriate section of Mark Speight would be the ideal solution. That will hopefully satisfy both camps in this argument, which appears to me to be going around in circles. Egdirf (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you fail to see about her (semi?-)notable acting and modelling career. How would that information be placed in the Mark Speight article? Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, you've made your views on this subject perfectly clear. Though this is a discussion to achieve concensus, and you're clearly welcome to comment, I can't help thinking that replying to everyone who disagrees with you, with exactly the same argument each time, isn't constructive. Talk Islander 20:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My intentions here, dear Islander, is to make sure that this article is kept as in the current position. To do that, I think that I will have to counter every arguement for the betterment of Wikipedia. Sorry if you see this as unconstructive, but that's my writing style. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep NOT NEWS applies only if there is insubstantial coverage over a short time, as is not the case here. She might possibly have been just barely notable enough for an article in any case, based on her work, or at least close to it, and her manner of death makes her at least a little more notable, which is sufficient. I would strongly oppose redirecting to Speight--this might be a violation of BLP with respect to him, as he has not been charged with any crime in connection with this. It can be mentioned in the article on him, but the link would throw excessive weight. DGG (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOT is one of the more abused Wikipedia policies, and this AfD does not disappoint. As an individual with reliable coverage of her career during lifetime, the addition of reliable coverage of her death only further cements notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If all we are doing is regurgitating recent press reports, then let them be the first entry on a google search, not us. When there is enough material to warrant a full encyclopedic article on the subject, I will be happy to revise my opinion. Wikipedia does not have to include everything, and an instance like this was one of the reasons WP:N was framed in the way it was. The consensus on Wikipedia at that time was that the subject of news reporting focussed on one event were not thought to be suitable subjects for an encyclopedic article unless their were exceptional circumstances.  A redirect to Mark Speight allows us to cover the event, inform our readers but not act as an obituary provider. Hiding T 12:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When will you ever start listening to me? he was not natable for one event, but two, possibly three: her death, her acting career, and (possibly) her accident. Besides, as stated above by DGG, a redirect to Speight may be a serious violation of BLP in respect to him. Editorofthewiki (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We are listening to you. Doesn't mean we have to agree. As for ther redirect, probably explains why Hiding chose 'delete', and not 'redirect'. Talk Islander 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but his wording was so ambiguous that it seemed more of a redirect then a delete. Editorofthewiki (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Mark Speight Delete. I would say that she's not notable in her own right; nothing in her life up to her death gives her serious evidence of notability. She is currently somewhat notable for her death, but that may not last; and we should only have an article on someone if their long-term notability is undisputed. On the other hand, if (heaven forbid) Speight were charged with causing her death, then she would probably become sufficiently notable for her own article. So, in other words: let's delete/merge this now, and wait for the outcome of the police investigation. She could become notable, but she hasn't yet, and to keep this article on the assumption that she will is to violate WP:CRYSTAL. Terraxos (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just changed my vote to 'Delete' as I notice all the relevant information has already been merged. Terraxos (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree. I hadn't heard of Natasha Collins until the morning of 4 January 2008, when I switched on the news - and there was the story of her death. I think this is probably the case with most people, and I doubt we'll remember her when 4 January 2009 rolls around, so why waste valuable Wikispace? The circumstances of her death were a tragedy, but there is nothing particularly notable about them, probably not even if Speight were charged in connection with it. The truth of the matter is that she isn't of sufficient notability for an article. There are lots of actors who appear in minor roles, such as Collins did, and it doesn't automatically give them 'celebrity' status. We need a reality check here. Brett Leaford (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Aspiring tragic young actress, merits own article. Prior experience in arenas of theatre, TV and film before career focus on modelling following her recovery from coma.
 * Comment Also 4wks until coroner's inquest reconvenes, so premature to consider here before further details emerge. --Ricksy (talk) 01:25, 23 January 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.