Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Wilson


 * 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. Nominated in good faith but no consensus to delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Wilson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) are candiditates for deletion.

WP:BIO The article fails the basic tenants of WP:BIO as the subject of this article has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, nor has been nominated for one several times. The subject of this article has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her specific field.

It is claimed that she is a media personality, but the only verifiable links provided suggest she is a newspaper reporter.The articles that are referenced were written about other people by her, not about her. The link provided at (http://www.vegafm.com.au/vega953) is not functional.

As a journalist, she doesn't meet any of the criteria required of Creative professionals. Ie, she is not a particularly well known or well respected journalist, or regarded widely by her peers. She is not known for originating a significnant new concept, theory or technique. Neither has she created a significant or well known work that has been the subject of a book, feature length film, or reviews.Her work has most definately not become a significant monument, been part of a signifianct exhibition, won significant cirtical attention, or is represented within the permanent collections of museums. Nor does she meet any of the criteria required for entertainers.She has had no significant roles in film or television. She has no large fan base. Nor has she mafe a unique, prolific or innovative contrubution to her field.

It is suggested in this article that she is notable because she is the partner of News Limited Chief Executive, John Hartigan. However, Relationships do not confer notability. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED#Notability_is_inherited)

WP:N It may be suggested that she is nonetheless notable, despite this. WP:N requires verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability.

The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

The evidence provided through links to her page do not show that she has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. The articles referenced were, in the main, written by her and were published in the herald sun. This is clearly self promotion, and is not objective evidence supporting a claim of notability. The link provided at (http://www.vegafm.com.au/vega953) is not functional.

WP:SELFPUB Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—


 * 1) it is not unduly self-serving;
 * 2) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The material as used in this article violate clauses 1 and 5. Most of the references used in the article were written by the subject and as such, the article is primairliy based on these sources. Furthermore, the article is prima facie self serving.

WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.As such, content hosted on wikipedia is not for Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Given the nature of this article, and the fact that most of the references are written by the subject of the article, it is clear that it is a tool for self pormotion, and that WP:SOAPS has been violated.

Conclusion Given that WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:SELFPUB and WP:SOAPS have been vilated in this instance, I argue that it is in the interests of wikipedia to delete this page. JusticeSonic (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

— JusticeSonic (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. It is very hard to accept good faith in this deletion nomination. User:JusticeSonic allegedly joined Wikipedia on 27 December 2010 and within 20 minutes  had formed a comprehensive, knowledgeable argument for deletion. This is very suspicious, perhaps even malicious. That aside, Wilson has proved herself as a notable journalist in print, radio and television, as her article and references clearly indicate. She is not universally popular (one wonders what she did to upset JusticeSonic and his earlier Wikipedia identity?), but that does not detract from her eligibility for an article here. WWGB (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate the allegation you have made WWGB, and I would like to remind you that BITE applies. I have made a number of edits before, however I hadn't needed to sign in to make those edits. In order to nominate an article for deletion, one has to create an account. I can assure you that I have nothing against Rebecca Wilson except for the fact that she is not notable. Her wikipedia entry reads like a resume, and if she was in fact notable, you wouldn't have to list the fact that she has worked with The Courier-Mail, Channel 10, ABC Television, The Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, the Adelaide Advertiser, Channel Seven and Foxtel. Wikipedia is not a resume, it is not a soapbox and it is not there to glorify nobodies. It is meant to be an encylopaedia.JusticeSonic (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable journalist. This reference, for example, reports on Wilson's journalism. StAnselm (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that she is a journalist does not make her a notable one. Ie, she is not a particularly well known or well respected journalist, or regarded widely by her peers. She is not known for originating a significnant new concept, theory or technique. Neither has she created a significant or well known work that has been the subject of a book, feature length film, or reviews.Her work has most definately not become a significant monument, been part of a signifianct exhibition, won significant cirtical attention, or is represented within the permanent collections of museums. Nor does she meet any of the criteria required for entertainers.She has had no significant roles in film or television. She has no large fan base. Nor has she mafe a unique, prolific or innovative contrubution to her field.JusticeSonic (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. She has had no significant roles in television? I guess you choose to overlook The Fat, 110% Tony Squires , Sunrise , The Footy Show , the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games ? WWGB (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * comment Did she host any of these programs or was she a guest? Like I've said before, she is a journalist. Just not a particularly notable one. Her roles on television are not significant. If every hanger-on that wrote a column in an aussie newspaper and was able to get a guest spot on a television show was considered notable, wikipedia would devolve into myspace.JusticeSonic (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you had actually bothered to read any of the references I provided, you would realise that she had a regular co-hosting or contributing role on each of the programs, not merely a "guest spot" as you allude. Using terms like "hanger-on" to describe the subject of the article indicates a degree of pre-existing bias. WWGB (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry, we judge on the merits of a person's body of work, of which there are plenty of sources listed, not the fact they have won awards or had films made about their work (most writers do not enter the business aiming for that goal). This reads like a nomination made to make a point by a single purpose account which has a rationale which is too long to be understood, much less can have the reasoning for deletion found within it. Article has long existed before her relationship was revealed, thus the NH rationale is invalidated, and nominator cites policies such as WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC which do not apply to the subject at all, and needs to learn to link to the proper rationales, as the Wikipedia Soap Opera Project doesn't apply here either.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 11:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * comment No need to be sorry. I respect everything you have to say, and am actually quite impressed by how cool wikipedia editors are :) I hope however that my argument isn't being ignored on the basis of the fact that I only just signed up for an account recently. As I said earlier, I have made a number of edits before, but hadn't needed to sign in. In order to nominate an article for deletion, I had to create an account. I'm not a serial wp:spaJusticeSonic (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep sources found by WWGB show that WP:ENT is met. could the nominator please explain how WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC apply here? also in all my years of WP this is the most longwinded nomination I've ever seen, even more suspicious coming as a first edit. it's as if the nominator has something personal against Rebecca Wilson. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources are there. Comment Let's all AGF on the nom :)David Able (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources found above establish notability. Jenks24 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2010 (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.