Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (actress)


 * 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 delete. The issue is notability. Opinions differ, but two of the "keep" opinions don't even address the notability issue and are therefore discounted, leaving us with a sufficiently strong supermajority for non-notability to constitute rough consensus to delete. I'm also salting this to require a community consensus before any attempt at recreation.  Sandstein  07:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Teresa May (actress)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article does not convince me of the notability of the subject nor does it seem to conform to Wikipedia’s guidelines on biographies. Wiki-Coffee Talk 06:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Yup, time to go. This is a ridiculously thin WP:BLP1E.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, the thing is, it isn't a single event. It's something that has been going on for several years, and resurfaced recently when Donald Trump made a spelling mistake. So this isn't exactly a BLP1E. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete again as still a WP:BLP1E (name confused with a notable person). The only new fact since deletion at Articles for deletion/Teresa May (2nd nomination) was a White House gaffe regarding the visit by Theresa May. Sources still don't support a biography for the subject. • Gene93k (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not true. This month alone, there have been articles and a whole chapter in the Prime Minister's latest biography (by Rosa Prince) about Teresa May, and how the link between the two women has been good both for the politician and her party. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note I've declined a speedy deletion of the article as a repost (WP:CSD) because it is being discussed here. This is without prejudice to the outcome of this discussion about which I'm neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero notability as an actress. Editors at last year's AFD searched diligently and found nothing in an well-attended AFD that closed as delete.   The fact that she shares a name (give or take an "h") does not make her notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a restoration of the sources from the last AfD. Have you read the last two entries in the "Further reading" section?  It was the White House gaffe in January that led to new bio information for Teresa May and restoration of the article.  But on 13 February, a new book has been released, a book that reveals a dramatic story that Theresa May's staff played on the name contrast at a time when as a shadow secretary, they were worried that she was on her way out.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * {subst:{I agree}} If Wikipedia had every person who had been mispelt by a famous person we'd be a birth registary. Wiki-Coffee  Talk 13:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are the two sources I just mentioned, currently at the end of "Further reading":
 * Nevertheless, she fails WP:BIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Personal testimony at the previous AfD that this was a well-known actress was disputed as lacking in sourcing.  We now have sources that call her a "veteran glamour model" and a "popular pornographic star".  Her notability continues to increase, and the dramatic story revealed in the new book refutes the assumptions at the previous AfD that we needed to be sensitive about associating the two topics.  We now know that Theresa May has actively promoted the name contrast.  As stated at the previous AfD, "...the GNG doesn't ask for the reason for the coverage. It's a simple objective test and Teresa May passes it."  Unscintillating (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing refutes the fact that no one has been able to source her career as an actress, let alone as "well known actress." She has a sort of limited use to publishers who want to run a naked photo of "Teresa May." This fails to support a WP:BIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you joking right now? "and the dramatic story revealed in the new book refutes the assumptions at the previous AfD that we needed to be sensitive about associating the two topics" that is almost advertising. Maybe remember WP:NPOV? Being a veteran glamour model and popular pornographic star does not make someone notable on Wikipedia. There must be a claim of significance... of which there is not. I could become a popular porn-star tomorrow and I might already have been called a “veteran glamour model” does that make it so I could have a page on Wikipedia? There is no substantiation of the claim that she is a popular porn star in the first instance and it doesn’t even assert why this person is notable let alone anything else. Wiki-Coffee  Talk 13:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see your WP:BEFORE D1 research reported in your nomination. Since you didn't prepare for this nomination, you are not now prepared to advance the discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should repeat the research you did last Summer. Unscintillating (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * notifying participants in 2nd AfD E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is what I found from looking at the snippets on the first page from a Google News search on [Teresa May].  Unscintillating (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Guardian 27 January 2017
 * Teresa May...made her name as a porn star
 * Daily Mail 27 January 2017
 * Teresa May - without the 'h' - is in fact a soft porn actress and glamour model who starred in a video for the song Smack My Bitch Up,
 * RT 13 February 2017
 * Teresa May – without an h – was a 32-year-old porn star from Beckenham in South London,
 * Daily Mail 11 February 2017
 * ...was a 32-year-old called Teresa May – without an h – from Beckenham in South London,
 * I skipped to page 5, and found entries from Washington Post and Reuters. The White House gaffe received wide attention in the US, and these sources show that the new story about the ties between the two is yet another news bubble.
 * Unscintillating (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources identified above clearly demonstrate notability. Perhaps the coincidence in name is part of the reason, but that is irrelevant. She has been discussed in some depth by multiple reliable independent sources. The subject has been found notable in three previous deletion discussions. Let's quit beating a dead horse. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Er, no, she has not "been found notable in three previous deletion discussions": discussion #1 in 2008 was closed keep under an old and overly loose set of notability and sourcing standards that isn't relevant anymore, discussion #2 in 2016 was closed delete, and this is discussion #3. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete As written, the article doesn't establish notability beyond the one event. Nothing has changed from the circumstances in which the article was originally deleted. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Something like this does not escape WP:BLP1E territory just because the same coverage context pops back up a second or third or fourth time — no matter how many more times she gets another brief blip of coverage because she happens to have virtually the same name as the Prime Minister, she still does not cross from BLP1E territory into "satisfies a notability criterion" until you can show sources besides the name-twin blips. If you want to get her over WP:NACTOR for "Smack My Bitch Up", or over WP:NMODEL for appearing in nudie mags, then you can't do it just by referencing those things to sources which are mentioning those facts by way of background in coverage that she's getting because name-twin; you need to show that she got some media coverage because "Smack My Bitch Up" or because nudie mags at the time those things were happening. If there were just three or four sources being shown here which were covering her without mentioning the PM at all, then I'd be happy to vote keep — but as long as the sourcing is dated entirely to 2016/17, and exists fundamentally because of the name coincidence rather than because her work is making her notable at all, then yes, she is still a BLP1E regardless of how many times the same 1E keeps bobbing back up above the surface of the "insignificant news of the weird" cycle. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The logic and analysis behind the AFD from July 2016 still hold. I think it was imprudent, although not clearly out of process, for the article to be reinstated without a DRV after such an extensive discussion, when the underlying facts and available sourcing had not materially changed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt - Fails BLP1E, PORNBIO, GNG ... Get rid & salt to prevent further recreations. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep because nobody here seems to have actually _read_ WP:BLP1E. All three criteria must be met to justify deleting an article, and criterion #3 is clearly not met ("event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented"). Therefore, this isn't a BLP1E situation. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to refresh your memory of the dictionary definition of "significant", if you think this satisfies it. And her "role" in it doesn't involve doing anything besides existing as a person who has a name, so the dictionary definition of "substantial" isn't being met here either. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to read criterion 3 more carefully. Significance in Wikipedia terms implies significant coverage in reliable sources. Notice also the usage of "or", in "either not substantial or not well documented"; the role was not substantial but it was well documented. So this fails criterion 3 for qualifying as BLP1E. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, significance in Wikipedia terms is not just "coverage exists"; it is "coverage exists in a context that satisfies a notability criterion". If all coverage had to do was exist to get a person into Wikipedia, such that the event had to be either substantial or well-documented but not both, then we'd have to keep an article about the woman a mile down the road from my parents who got news coverage a few years ago for waking up one morning to find a pig in her yard. Coverage does obviously have to exist, yes, but it has to exist in a context that's noteworthy before it counts as notability-conferring coverage. In either words, it's not "either/or" in the sense that passing either half of the equation, but not both, translates into escaping BLP1E; it's "either/or" in the sense that failing either half of the equation does make her a BLP1E, and she has to pass both of them to escape it. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I've formatted some of the references from Google news as citations.
 * Unscintillating (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Heya: So, per you, the claim of significance is based on the fact the subject of this articles first name was accidentally used instead of Theresa May’s name. So even when I am not trying to trivialise the claim of significance you have asserted, it stands to be that due to the subject of this articles name being a typo, that now apparently makes her a notable and significant person? I cannot understate the idiotic nature of this assertion based on mere common sense alone. Furthermore, being subject to news reports alone does not make someone notable on Wikipedia. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and not an indiscriminate collection of every person who has been mentioned in the news because their name has been used in a typo. Furthermore, starring in porn films does not automatically make someone notable either. The only things the news sources you have provided prove is that her name was subject to a typo and that she is a porn star who has featured in many movies. The news sources themselves don’t indicate this person is anything notable in respect to Wikipedia’s standards of notability nor do any other sources for that matter. Wiki-Coffee Talk 18:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if your assertions that a person’s name being used by mistake instead of a notable person’s name and this being noticed then reported by the media is, on its own enough to establish notability, then the precedent would be set for that to occur with any other biography written about someone on Wikipedia. Would this then mean that anyone with the name Teresa May could automatically become notable enough for a Wikipedia article if they decide to tell the media about themselves and have a story published about it? There are many people who share exactly the same names as notable people, would those people be notable enough on that basis alone? Wiki-Coffee  Talk 19:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Salt it - I didn't request to salt in the nom but after further research and reading discussion it probably would be a good idea to salt it to stop it reappearing. There has already been a discussion to delete this from Wikipedia (which resulted in delete) and I don't really know how it got back here but once this discussion is concluded, and presuming it will be deleted, I would be suggesting salt as well. Wiki-Coffee  Talk 19:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt per Bearcat's newscycle of the weird. An admin can always restore if some more substantial coverage of Teresa herself does emerge, but I don't think it's a good use of community time to re-debate the same thin info each time it cycles through the press because someone accidentally swapped Teresa for Theresa. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Easilly passes GNG and WP:BIO due to the coverage she received for her successful career back in the 90s. The 17+ years coverage for having a similar name to a prominent politician is just icing on the cake.  Struggling to see why folk are asserting she doesn't meet our inclusion policies when that's so blatantly untrue.  Maybe it's a well meaning but misguided view that the article harms one of the individuals on BLP grounds?
 * Per the 1st AfD, there's reason to think the subject herself likes having a wikipedia article.
 * As for our prime minister, if one reads Theresa May: The Enigmatic Prime Minister by good Rosa Prince, there's a whole chapter on "the other Teresa". It talks about their appearance together on GMTV back in the year 2000. And how the easy rapport the two women showed helped humanise the politician, showing that despite her posh and somewhat reserved nature she was non judgmental and friendly. The Rosa's biography talks about how the Tory party deliberatly kept the story about of the two Teresa's in the news for several years, part of a fairly successful campaign to dispel the image they used to have as "the nasty party". Teresa is thus highly significant both in pop culture due to her fame in the 90s, and in politics.FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Argument based in a false premise that there was "coverage" of "her successful career back in the 90s" NO ONE has been able to find WP:RSs covering her porn career outside the Theresa/Terese context, although many good editors have died trying.  Agree with editors above that we should Salt this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no false premise in my argument. For someone willing to spend a little money or who has the right collection of 90s magazines, it's trivially easy to find coverage of her career outside the name conicidence. Most of it is behind paywalls though, as it's in archived / digitised copies of pulications from the 1990s. Just to give an indication, this link shows a snipet view of EMMA (magazine) from 1998 where they are talking about her career from a feminist perspective and without mentioning the politician  (who at that time was not even in the shadow cabinet, and much less famous than the model, except in her local area and the westminster village. ) FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing that the book is by Theresa June, and that Rosa Prince is credited for an article on dailymail.co.uk about the book. Unscintillating (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe we're talking about different things. The book Theresa May: The Enigmatic Prime Minister is definetly by Rosa Prince. Minor point, but the artilce by Rosa in the DM was more publicising the book rather than about it as such. There have been articles recently in Financial Times, The Guardian, and many other papers about the book, but those were by journalists not the author herself. Thanks btw for your heroic working saving articles - wish I had the perserverence to do even a fraction of what you do here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Tabloid coverage in general does not establish notability. The Daily Mail in particular is banned for use as a reference in Wikipedia per consensus Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220. Poor reputation for fact checking along with a history of outright fabrication. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The RfC says nothing about being "banned", in fact at a current discussion, an editor says, "Honestly I don't see much of a change anyway from normal usage of the DM." meaning that editors already knew that TDM was a limited resource. Unscintillating (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt assertion is not the same as providing sources. Are the sun and the revolting DM really what some people round here are acceptable. What a joke. Please discard such ridiculous arguments. Spartaz Humbug! 09:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Nobody is disputing that Teresa without a H is a) a porn star (or "glamour model and actress") and that b) her name is similar to that of Britain's Prime Minister. The problem is that none of this satisfies WP:GNG, and also has problems with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I should just become a porn star tomorrow... do a few hundred movies then call up the news and tell them my name is Doneld Stump then demand a Wikipedia article be made about me (I am actually starting to seriously think about that.) → (talk to me!) (contributions) 18:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Teresa May's career as a "glamour model and actress" seems to have occurred mainly in the 1990s and early 2000s, which is long before Theresa May was a well known politician in Britain. So Teresa without a H is off the hook on the charge of copying someone else's name to gain publicity. If she had used the stage name Margareta Thatcher (or similar) things would have been different of course. There was a court case involving this type of situation with Violet Blue and Noname Jane (star of the memorably titled Bang My White Tight Ass).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * She may be found here with an incredibly detailed and telling description of the relationship between herself and a vegetable. Furthermore, after reading that I do not think I am going to be well equipped to take on the role of a porn star anytime soon, there goes my dreams of being debated about in an AfD for an article about me. I am not going to forget Margareta Thatcher anytime soon. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 19:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep for clarity. Having the article makes it clear that Teresa May is a different person and not a misspelling of Theresa May. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? AusLondonder (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- notability not established and the content in the article is mostly trivia. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete notability is in no way established. Weak sourced puff article. It is time to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Most absurdly tenuous claim to notability in a long time. AusLondonder (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep notabilty well established & she is much wider known as a celebrity than countless reality tv stars & some pop stars who go back to stacking supermarket shelves after their half hour of "superstardom." And has been known to the public at large longer than the current PM who shares her name. CliffordJones (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete content and retarget title to "event" article (needs to be written). First, to WP:GNG – there is no doubt that Teresa May has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so she is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article – "presumed" means "that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included", which is why deleting her article is being discussed here "in depth".  So we see that this begins to boil down to "what Teresa May is".  As for what she is, she has received no awards neither for acting nor modeling, so as I see it, the subject fails both WP:NMODEL and WP:PORNBIO.  Therefore, the only possible notability she has must come from the single "event".  We go on to WP:BLP1E – one main focus in this discussion has been the third criterion in that part of this Wikipedia policy.  After removing other stuff, the sentence becomes, "We should generally avoid having an article on a person [...] if the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented."  The event has proven itself in reliable sources to be considered significant enough for us to be having this sometimes heated discussion about it.  As well, the subject's role in the event has been quite "well documented".  So the final argument boils down to whether or not the subject's role in "the event" is to be considered "substantial".  Many say "no", because her only role in the event appears to be that her name, "Teresa May", is just one letter off from the prime minister's name of "Theresa May", and that by itself is not at all significant.  Others here seem to say, "But is that her only role in this?  Or is there more to it?"  If her only role is having a very similar name, then no, her role should not be considered as "substantial".  However, if there is more to her role than just the similar name, then that just might make her role in the event substantial, which would meet the BLP1E criteria and allow an article to exist about Teresa May.  Fortunately, the (in this case) controversial BLP1E policy is assisted by WP:BIO1E, our notability guideline, which states, "Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people."  It is with this guideline that the subject's article fails, which means that its content should be deleted.  The guideline also stresses that if the event is significant, as in this case, then an article should be written about the event, and the person's article should be redirected to the event article.  This it would seem is the optimum solution.  Thank you for your indulgence, and I ask your forgiveness for "thinking out loud" and for being unusually verbose.  I actually wrote all this before coming to a final decision.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  15:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have drafted an article at British prime minister mistaken for actress for you all to peruse and improve. When ready, that "event" article can be moved to mainspace and be the target of a redirect, "Teresa May (actress)" and possibly the "Teresa May" redirect could be retargeted to it also.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  18:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have read the draft article, and find it to be precisely the sort of violation of WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:SENSATION that are disparaged by Wikipedia guidelines.  I continue to believe that the best approach is to delete the no-"h" Teresa because she is not notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Teresa May article, this article we are discussing, has no business on Wikipedia because the actress/model has no notability beyond that of the event. Thank you for reading the draft; however, it needs much more than reading, it needs much improvement.  I'm prepping for surgery tomorrow, so I have little time to spend on it, but I will return to it as soon as possible.  Meanwhile, those editors who agree that the event has proven notable enough to be on Wikipedia are welcome to make improvements to Draft:British prime minister mistaken for actress.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  22:03, 28 February 2017 (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.