Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:44, 1 March 2009

Gail Trimble

Gail Trimble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I'm going to make myself unpopular by nominating this one now – I can see a lot of people are working on it – but this seems to me to be exactly the kind of biography of a living person Misplaced Pages should not be hosting. This is an absolute textbook example of a person notable for one event, with recentism providing an inflated dose of "notability". Yes, she is the highest ever scorer on a particular quiz show; but every points-based quiz show ever has a highest scorer. She has no apparent other notable achievements (or at least, none that have been sourced), and while she obviously is very bright and may well go on to be a leading academic, she is not one yet.

Most of the arguments made on the talk page in favor of keeping this article seem to be variations of "received a lot of media coverage". Yes, this can sometimes be a pointer towards notability, but it does not mean notability. If I'm permitted to violate WP:CRYSTAL myself for a moment, it seems unlikely she will be receiving any coverage in a month's, let alone a year's, time, unless she has some other achievement.

There's also a do-no-harm issue here. The article itself states that the subject is uncomfortable with media coverage, and this is by no stretch a case where the subject is of such importance that they need to be covered regardless of their wishes. At the time I write this, almost 50% of the article is occupied by a "Cultural impact" section. Quite aside from the dubiousness of a "cultural impact" section on someone who has only been even marginally famous for three days, this section is basically a laundry-list of assorted personal attacks on her which have been made by various media figures, and discussion of said attacks.

I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I don't see how this article is ever going to be viable unless and until she has some other significant achievement to her credit, and believe it needs to go back to being the redirect to University Challenge it began as. Flames to the usual place, please.  – iridescent 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with nom that this person is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Her media coverage is entirely about one event and not one that is worthy of an biography in an encyclopedia. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete for reasons specified above. Misplaced Pages is not about pop culture opr 15 minutes of fame. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete per well-detailed above argument. WP:BLP1E, specifically. Adam Zel (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep. If she were simply and solely the captain of a team which won a TV programme, she would not be sufficiently notable for an article, in my view. But that is not the case. Her success in the programme has led to massive - and I use that word quite advisedly - media interest in the UK, which has focussed on the extent of her dominance of that programme and, even more, on the hostile reaction that there has been to her success in some areas of society (blogs etc.) - and what that means for British society. She has been claimed by a columnist of a serious national newspaper as being "more divisive than anyone since Thatcher" - quite a claim, one which justifies the need to publish information about her that people can look into. The relationship between the way in which she is being treated to the way in which the contrasting figure of Jade Goody is being treated has been seized on by numerous commentators, such as Melanie Phillips, as indicating something fundamental about British society. She is, at the moment, a very important figure in discussions about UK society, and people have a right to expect that WP will provide neutral and unbiased information about her. "The subject is uncomfortable with media coverage..." Not so - she's obviously and unsurprisingly uncomfortable with the nature and quality of some of the media coverage, but the fact that she has appeared on national Breakfast TV, given other media interviews, had photos of her as a child published in the local press, and even before her success appeared in university publicity, suggests she's not opposed to publicity per se, just bad and irresponsible publicity - which is not in any way what this article does. "Misplaced Pages is not about pop culture..." Why on earth not? - it can cover high culture and pop culture more than adequately. And perhaps anyone who thinks she's not notable could try hitting the "random article" button to see how many articles it will take before hitting an article with 6000 hits in a year, let alone in 4 days which is what this article has had. Like it or not, there is a demand for information about her, and there is no good reason why WP should not meet that demand. Seriously, if she was in the US not the UK would anyone dare propose deleting the article? Of course not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Question- Would you say the coverage has been similar to that of Ken Jennings? If it is, then Im ight be persuaded to change my response to just a straightforward Keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite some article there! - never having heard of Ken Jennings before, I've no idea about the extent of press coverage in that case - but what interests me about Trimble is not so much her ability to answer quiz questions (though that is, perhaps, almost unprecedented) but on the cultural impact she has had, and the questions that is raising in the UK. If we were being more than usually pedantic, I could support renaming the article to "Cultural impact of Gail Trimble's appearances on University Challenge 2009" - but that would be a bit silly, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And do you honestly believe, too, that in a week, two weeks time, the media interest will still be there? Achromatic (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Who knows? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The guideline you linked to - 'Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball' - is exactly why we shouldn't have this article. Ms. Trimble is not notable yet. She may become so in the future, but that's a judgement to be made with the benefit of hindsight and historical perspective; and we can't keep this article on the presumption that she might become notable, as that's what WP:CRYSTAL is meant to prevent. If you're not certain that she'll still be a recognised name next week, then we shouldn't have this article. Robofish (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and rename/rewrite- While yes, there are BLP1E issues here, I think that the event is notable enough, as demonstrated by the numerous sources cited in the article, that it should be covered here. However I think it should be named and re-written to cover things based on the events, not the person. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Also of interest to this deletion discussion(?): Her mention in the Nuts (magazine) article. --Ali'i 16:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  I just removed it - she is no more notable than anybody else who declined such an offer. The criticism section was added by an IP yesterday and is a big load of unsourced bollocks anyway. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  Addendum: Someone might want to have a run through Category:Jeopardy! contestants to check for other similar cases (only about 30 articles or so). For instance, I'd say on par (or even less so) with this article is someone like Larissa Kelly. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  Looking at that article I'd warn strongly against this being considered a similar case. Trimble's notability is not as a one-off quiz show contestant - it is as a quiz show contestant whose success has led to very widespread high profile coverage across the UK, and where this has snowballed to the extent that the nature of that coverage itself has been the subject of comment and debate by highly regarded national media figures (and even Jonathan Ross!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. As above, this is similar to Ken Jennings. There is more information here than would reasonably be included in another article. If the article were nothing more than just a description of the show, it would be one thing, but independent reliable sources have covered her in a broader context (for example the sources referenced in the background section). For people interested in this issue from a policy perspective, there is also currently an ongoing debate on WP:ONEVENT at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people). Cool3 (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  Jennings was on multiple, multiple shows (in line to co-host another), is the focus of a board game, gained commercial endoresments, and is an author of 2 books and a columnist. Trimble ain't Jennings. (Yet?) Fairly absurd to compare the two at this point. --Ali'i 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Certainly Jennings is far more notable now, but take a look at an older version of the article. For example . There was a time when Jennings had even less coverage than Trimble does, that's the point I was really making. Game show winners can certainly be notable. Cool3 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• So because Jennings had an article in 2004 (before we had any kind of biographies of living people policy, by the way), we should have an article on Trimble in 2009? That argument is fail. --Ali'i 20:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not the argument I was making. Argument is: major winners of game shows who attract significant media attention are notable. What the BLP policy says is:"Where a person is mentioned by name in a Misplaced Pages article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them". Do dozens of mentions in the most-read publications in Britain make someone "low-profile"? I rather doubt it. Furthermore, she is rapidly gaining significance beyond the "one event" that people may talk about. From the Financial Times, "Gail Trimble, the extraordinarily knowledgeable captain of the Corpus Christi (Oxford) team which won the latest run of University Challenge, a BBC quiz show, has stimulated a series of debates" . "Stimulated a series of debates", sounds to me like an indication of significance and more than just a low-profile person who happened to make it into the news. Cool3 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect - While I believe this will serve as a useful redirect to University Challenge (which is why I created it on Monday), I don't believe there is any justification for a full article. She is known for one event and that event can briefly be mentioned in the University Challenge article. If she should become more notable in the future (say as a television presenter or even Paxman's replacement should he ever step down as University Challenge host) then she can have her own biography. But somehow I doubt that's going to happen. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Selective merge into University Challenge 2009. The media response to Gail Trimble is a notable aspect of the 2009 series – but she isn't independently notable, and a biographical article about her will be impossible to keep up to date without violation of privacy. EALacey (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Even better. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep. has received much attention in lots of different media. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The only reliable sources for anything connected with Ms Trimble are to do with the fact that she did very well on a quiz program. There are no reliable secondary sources for her biographical details. This is the very definition of People notable only for one event, and this article is paradigmatic for when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Textbook case. Anna Rundell (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it could also be a case of "In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved". I'd say this is probably true here. (full disclosure: I recently wrote most of the text at WP:BIO1E) Cool3 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? A brief media flurry makes this person more famous than the whole of the previous 47 years of the show? Anna Rundell (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The show's not the event here, the one event would be the current season. Cool3 (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The many references assert verifiable notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Reference justify it. Me677 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems a textbook case of WP:BLP1E to me. Look at the dates on the references. When they are separated by more than 36 days I might reconsider. Kevin (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The multiple references from reliable sources tend to support notability. Maybe she will be commonly remembered in the future (compare Ken Jennings) and maybe she won't, but it would seem to make more sense to leave the article for now, while she is still in the public eye, and then if she is largely forgotten in the future, submit the article for deletion then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into the game article for now. If she develops independent notability, then this can be restored. This is an example where we really need more distance from the event to know how it should be considered in light of our policies. JRP (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and recreate as a redirect with the salient points merged into University Challenge 2009. There is no notability independent of the quiz programme; as others have said, this may change with time but we are dealing with now. Nancy 06:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, merge if need be. I'm in agreement with the nominator. "Cultural impact"? That utterly smacks of OR and hyperbole. I have serious doubts that in a week's time, she'll have anywhere near the same media interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 06:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• This girl is special - she deserves a Wiki page. It will expand further info about Uni Challenge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.142.207 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 09:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep WP:BLP1E is being misunderstood and misapplied. Her notability does not arise from having been arbitrarily involved in a notable event. Her position is that of an outstanding performer and her notability is directly due to her own talents and deeds. She is thus comparable to an Olympic gold medalist or other major contest winner. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you really saying that appearing on University Challenge is equivalent to competing in the Olympics? Well, it isn't, I can tell you —72.255.39.39 (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please see Eddie the Eagle, Eric the Eel, Jamaican Bobsled Team, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as you have to know things to be successful, rather than getting loads of money plowed into a sport that no-one really cares about. Keep the article, no different as per an Olympic athelete who competes at one games and wins one medal, or, of course, the number of non-notable nobodies who've been in reality shows who have their own articles. Lugnuts (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or merge into University Challenge. Clear case of WP:BLP1E, and if she later becomes notable for some other work, the article can be created then. Jonobennett (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. For everyone citing some version of, she is only notable for one event, the press coverage of her is continuing. One event is more about a flurry of press coverage on one or two days after something happens, but if anything the coverage of her is expanding, and it certainly asserts notability. The Guardian called her "a media sensation" this morning . The Times ran a piece on her today . A writer in the Telegraph remarked "I'm sure everyone is by now familiar with Corpus Christi College and their all-conquering captain Gail Trimble" . Certainly this in an indication of notability, and the fact that the coverage didn't stop when the show stopped is an indication that she's bigger than just one event, becoming in fact, something of a cultural phenomenon. Cool3 (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Cool3 hit the nail on the head. I don't see a difference between her article and this article on the main page, which is essentially "one event". Lugnuts (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• The difference is that this article is a BLP, and so is rightly held to higher inclusion standards than articles on other subjects. (That one in particular is a terrible example, as it's a widely-reported air disaster in which 9 people died and hundreds were injured - obviously rather more significant than a contestant who won a game show, I would have thought.) Robofish (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Nope. It is much too soon to declare her a person of note who has accomplishments that warrant a permanent entry in an encyclopedia. Today we know that she is someone that is attracting the attention of the media for her current activities. People that want to read about her can look at newspaper, magazine articles, or websites. Newspapers and magazines are the appropriate place for people to find information about her because of her current notoriety. Sometime down the road, she may have the accomplishments that are typically needed for an encyclopedia entry. Until that time, information about her is best placed in an article about University Challenge. Worst case scenario, lowering our standards to include an entry on her has the potential of causing problems for her in real life. There is a significant risk that the article will be a place for false information to be provided to the reader. The most likely scenario is that the article will grow stale with information that does not reflect her ongoing life accomplishments because they will never be cover in the media after her 15 minutes of fame passes. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• She's also starting to appear in mentions, merely as a celebrity in articles about other things, showing that her celebrity is more pervasive. For example, see , an article in the Times that begins "In a week dedicated to celebrating the nimble-witted Gail Trimble" and then continues about other topics. When other sources make passing reference to a person, expecting everyone to know who it is, that's a pretty excellent indication of notability. Cool3 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• All of this still relates to her appearance on the television show. Loads of chatter about it, yes. Because it was a popular show, it is getting more media coverage than usual. But that does not change the fact that she is known for this single event. The reason that we should put material about her in University Challenge rather than a separate entry is not changed my many different media outlets repeating the same information. The encyclopedic quality information about her is still extremely thin and can be covered in a short paragraph. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep on two formal objections to a faulty application of BLP1E argument. (A) The person was involved not in a single event, but, rather, in a quite a long string of events. She appeared in public no less than a lead actor of a miniseries, and probably brought the tv barons far more cash. (B) BLP1E specifically says Where a person is mentioned by name in a Misplaced Pages article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Even if Trimble dislikes her publicity, she's not a low-profile individual anymore. NVO (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Question if you don't mind answering (or someone else can, maybe), why do you think that a separate article is the best place to offer information to the reader about her? If her name is a redirect to University Challenge then the reader can find information about her there. Encyclopedic quality information about her is very thin and can best be presented in a single short paragraph. It is not a matter of a stub waiting for someone to do more research and expand the entry, rather with her short article we will be waiting for her to do something else notable so more content can be added. Can you see the difference between the two scenarios and why that in one case a short article is fine but in the other it is the recipe for trouble? FloNight♥♥♥ 17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Coverage has gone way beyond her performance in University Challenge. She is now a celebrity, role model and hate figure. Much of the coverage now focusses upon the extent to which her excellence is condemned while the crude ignorance of reality TV stars is excused, so exemplifying the dumbing down of modern culture. You might think that Misplaced Pages would have a special place for lovers of knowledge but we have this attack here too. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• The media coverage is still limited in scope because it is covering a person known for a single event. The larger number of different media outlets covering her does not change the fact that there is a narrow range of content that can be added about her. While it expands the choice of references, the expanded number of media outlets covering her does not increase our ability to write a comprehensive article about her. Our inability to write an article that adequately portrays her life is the reason that WP:BLP1E exists. In these instances, a separate article is not needed to display the available content. And having an article based on the limited information does not capture the full essence of who the person really is so can be harmful to the person. The WP:BLP was written to recognize that special care needs to be taken to make sure we are displaying content about living people in a way that accurately reflects the person. If a person known for a single event, it is next to impossible to provide broad enough material to do justice to the topic. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• The article is already comprehensive, giving a well-sourced account of her education, her interests, her achievements, her performance in University Challenge and the intense recent interest in her. Now compare this with the hundreds of articles in the Category:Swimmers at the 2008 Summer Olympics such as Julia Beckett. Singling out a highly notable person to be humiliated by deleting her article while leaving thousands of stubby articles about numerous minor sportsmen and women is not justice. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that argument is called "Other stuff exists". Anna Rundell (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• While your argument is called WP:VAGUEWAVE. If you actually read WP:OSE, you will find that it explains that "When used properly, a logical rationalization of 'Other Stuff Exists' may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain.". I am using this properly by showing that Misplaced Pages systematically maintains stubby articles on outstanding performers or even indifferent performers - those who simply qualified for a notable event. We have many thousands of such articles and these clearly establish a relevant precedent per WP:OSE: "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - textbook WP:BLP1E - Alison 18:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I was going to vote delete first, but several foreign news sources write about her. Their readers probably do not even watch University Challenge, so she is independently notable. Note also that this debate was linked from Misplaced Pages review, whose readers are rather pro-deletion on BLP articles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Misplaced Pages Review. Mike R (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Rename - if it's one event, just rename to relate to the event. That's what happens to coatracks. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - blatant WP:BLP1E. I can understand the desire to have an article on someone like Trimble while she was briefly in the news, but it's abundantly clear already that she has no lasting notability - we're talking about someone here who was 'famous' for a week at most. Thanks to iridescent for nominating the article; as I noted on the talk page, I was thinking of doing so myself, but didn't want to face controversy by doing it now. I'm glad someone was willing to do what needed to be done and take responsibility for it. Robofish (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My preference would be for either Redirect or Rename to event, but I'd take Keep over Delete, if those were my only two choices. 7triton7 (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates