Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Trimble (2nd 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 keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Trimble[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It was WP:BLP1E in 2009, and it's BLP1E now. Rd232 ^talk 14:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So let's Redirect it to University Challenge or something like that. The event is notable enough for a mention in the context of the subject of the quiz show, but Trimble never became the next Joan Bakewell, so she is not notable herself. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge/redirect to University Challenge 2008–09 (deleting the more trivial stuff). It's permissible to have an article on a season of a TV show and discuss important participants if that season and participant receives significant coverage. And Trimble received a lot of coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to the relevant article. Trimble's case, if you look at more recent mentions of her name in the media, has become a byword for inappropriate and sexist treatment of female contestants, and since none of this is mentioned in the redirect targets, a simple redirect is not appropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's some detailed coverage from 2011 which provides the accolade that "Gail Trimble, the Oxford Latin scholar, was hailed as the greatest contestant in University Challenge history." It also explains that she was the subject of an internet hate campaign. We should not support such hatred by deleting her article as this would be contrary to policy. Warden (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and selective merge. Classic BLP1E case. The reference given by Warden is only an in-passing mention in an article about the program and does not show enduring coverage. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an example and there are plenty more to be found. Here's another from just a few months ago which highlights her current work as a classical scholar and contributor to the Oxford Classical Dictionary. That item makes some amusing points about Wikipedia too. Warden (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that we have different ideas about what constitutes "in depth coverage" and "in-passing mention" (or even "highlight")... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Compare Dorret Boomsma - an article of your creation which contains numerous personal details unsupported by citations. Warden (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to respond to that as I completely fail to see the relevance of that here. I suggest you take this to the talk page of that article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A ridiculous comparison as Dorret Boomsma has almost 50 publications with over 100 cites each which give a very clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The subject also passes notability guidelines such as WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. These are both accomplished women but the subject is better known as a person and so her personal details are better supported by citations. We therefore have a better case for a personal biography. Warden (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Coverage is adequate to meet WP:N. BLP1E is a concern, and 1k page views / month isn't a high readership demonstrating much interest. However the article is in a pretty good state and whilst the 1E might not seem that important on a world scale, it was a pretty big story in the UK at the time, which has since become a touchstone of more recent stories and comment on academic misogyny. In the absence of any strong reason (privacy, Ms Trimble's own expressed view) I'm inclined to keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as BLP1E and to protect subject's privacy. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, possibly merge if there's no significant coverage after 2009, or nothing on her academic career. bridies (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Her notability I think is clearly established as the result of the very wide coverage in the UK media in 2009 and this still seems to me sufficient. This reference seems supportive of my view

University Challenge final scores 5.3m 24 February, 2009 | By Jon Rogers where he argues BBC2's University Challenge benefitted from the fame of Gail Trimble as the final of the quiz show gained 5.3m viewers (20.8%), the show's highest audience since at least 2001. [1](Msrasnw (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep The breath and enduring nature of coverage in reliable sources easily exempts the article from BLP1E. As some had concerns that the subject might prefer deletion due to privacy concerns, especially in the previous AfD, I emailed them and they said they had no preference. Nothing gained from destroying this interesting and culturally important article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Culturally important"??? You sure you're writing about the correct article here? (Nuts wanted her email address and some bloggers thought she was smug and snobbish...) And "enduring": as far as I can see, all coverage is about one single event and was published in 2009. If that isn't BLP1E, then we should abolish that policy altogether. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz shows are a popular television genre here in Britain, and many of the formats we create are exported globally. Also, if you read the telegraph article provided by the good Colonel, you'd see not only one of several examples of post 2009 coverage, but that the subject is also productive in high culture. As with most first class types like Homer and Shakespeare, the subject is appreciated both by the common people and the most cultured. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the quiz isn't notable, but just that one winning one doesn't make one notable. You're adding the in-passing mention that Warden came up with to the ONEEVENT and the subjects published works to construe a notability that simply is a house of cards. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is claiming that merely winning is why she is notable, but rather the manner of the contest. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:N AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.