Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Glover (3rd 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. Concerns about article content should be handled through normal editing. asilvering (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as I do not believe that it meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability. In addition, it has had and continues to have a negative impact on the subject of the article and is poorly sourced in many places.

This article was first nominated for deletion in 2007 and later in 2010. At the time, it was argued that Glover did meet the Wikipedia notability criteria. However, a lot has changed since then and she is no longer active in modelling like she was once was.

I believe that given her relative lack of notability, in combination with her personal wishes for it to be removed, that the article should no longer be on Wikipedia as it doing her more harm than good.

Svenska356 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article subject has twice been determined to be notable. Per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. There are numerous sources which support WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your point.

  But, even if notability is not temporary, a reassessment of its notability is still possible per those guidelines. The last time the article was deemed notable was 14 years ago. In the past 14 years, there has been a lot less media coverage on Louise Glover. Svenska356 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It contains only bits and pieces of the subject's life and career. All with a one-sided negative spin from the subject's twenties, and nothing about the following decade of charity work and fitness model achievements after she abandoned the glamour industry. Coolhandluke00 (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That can be resolved by editing the article and adding reliable sources rather than removing the article entirely. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lack of reliable sources on Glover's life after 2010 when the article was last nominated for deletion though. And, looking at the sources at least 8 of them, so almost a third are negative. That percentage is quite high given all the positive things she has done since 2010. As a result, I maintain that the article should be reassessed and deleted under the notability criteria. Svenska356 (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article should be deleted. Person in question is no longer in the public eye and original poster has only commented on the negative rather than positives resulting in a negative effect on person in questions mental health.

Deleting this article would benefit as all negative convictions are now spent and will allow said person to move on with their life. 2A00:23C6:6281:5401:EDBA:9093:2DE3:103C (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject is still receiving media coverage as of this week. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the subject was notable in 2010 she is still notable. Whether the sources present positive or negative information is irrelevant. Some of the sources are difficult to assess right now because archive.org is offline but hopefully that will be resolved soon.

(For the closer, I will also note that both of the delete votes apart from the nom come from accounts that have zero edits other than to this discussion. The nom also has no edits other than to the subject article and to this discussion. The nom mentions the subject's wishes, and the nom and the two delete !voters mention the subject's recent activities, which aren't mentioned in any sources that have been provided, all of which suggests possible COI editing by all three accounts. The article has a recent history of undisclosed COI editing, such as from User:Happiness2018 who is now blocked for COI editing, and from User:82.33.38.46 whose talk page clearly shows COI.) CodeTalker (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker Hello, could you please kindly unbold your mention of delete !votes as it may be technically, visually and procedurally confusing? Thank you (rather use a cap letter, italics or quotation marks). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notability is not temporary; once notable, always notable. If there is too much weight given to negative incidents and not enough to positive, then this can be fixed by editing. Wikipedia is not censored and if there are reliable sources confirming the negative incidents then they should be covered. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your points. At the very least, the subject article does need attention so that more weight is put on positive achievements, especially in the past decade or so. As user 'ItsKesha' stated, the subject has continued to receive media coverage as of this week. Some of these more recent sources should be used to update the article, so that it offers a more recent and balanced reflection of the subject's life activities, be they good or bad. Svenska356 (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Some recent coverage [1]. I suppose this is notable; rather sad end to a career, but it's sustained coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand if the article is kept. However, the main issue I have with this outcome is still the level of harm it could cause to the subject versus the benefit of keeping the article on wikipedia.

The deletion policy itself states that "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete."

Although, there has been a little bit of media coverage on the subject recently, it is sporadic at best. I concede that it may still pass the notability criteria on paper, but I think that keeping the article up comes down to a moral issue.

The subject, per the latest media coverage, is currently experiencing homelessness. It is possible that the negative information about them on this article is holding them back from career opportunities and contributing to their current circumstances.

Going back to the moral issue, I believe that removing this article is the best course of action from a Utilitarian perspective. I understand the importance of rules and guidelines on Wikipedia. However, I also believe that, in the pursuit of the greatest utility and well-being for the greatest number, there sometimes needs to be room for exceptions.

In my view, the subject's personal circumstances warrant such an exception despite the notability criteria. The subject is no longer as notable and as visible in the public eye as they once were. And there is little information on them past 2007 as a result. This Wikipedia article is not benefitting the subject at all and is of little benefit to the general public. When weighed out, you will find that the level of average utility would increase were the article to be removed.

A strictly deontological approach to decision making disregards empathy. Given the subject's circumstances, I believe that it is very important to act with empathy and take an approach that would minimise the continued harm to the subject's reputation and life opportunities.

As I said at the start, I understand if you decide to keep the article. But, before coming to a decision, I urge you to take the subject's difficult personal circumstances into account in combination with the continued effects this article could have on their personal and professional life. Svenska356 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Svenska356:

Please kindly remove your bolded !vote indication. Nominators are, unless they indicate otherwise, counted as "!voting" Delete and this might be considered a double !vote, which is not permitted. (No opinion on the subject myself, just a netiquette reminder. )Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Clearly notable, clearly still notable as in the two current sources cited above. Clearly not someone trying to disappear from public sight, as she is telling her story on Instagram. Past criminal offences are a fact, properly sourced. But the article can be rebalanced by including content from the recent newspaper article: septicemia, climbing to Everest Base Camp as a charity fundraiser, recent work as dog-walker, etc. PamD 07:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the article should be edited to reflect her more recent activities. It is a delisted good article at the moment in part due to being out of date. If deletion isn't an option, then it needs some attention at the very least. Svenska356 (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2024 (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.