- 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Brigitte Barclay
- Brigitte Barclay ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article for somebody best known for being kidnapped by aliens. The sourcing is a train-wreck of WP:BLPSOURCES-violating tabloid journalism, or otherwise just plain old "stuff on the internet", and it's saying something when the most respectable sources are The Sun and The Daily Mail. While she might be a colourful figure to listen to (if you're into that sort of thing), I can't see how this is a realistic subject for an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Entertaining article, and though while the Sun and the Mirror can occasionally be sort-of RS for celebrity info here, absent any particular GNG sourcing, the existing sources cited don't even verify the "best-known" tag (source cited speaks warmly of her, but "best-known" is not there, hence WP:SYNTH). Half the cites merely appear to verify that she's apparently been photographed in a state of inadequate clothing insufficient to keep the poor girl warm. Can't be having promotion of such dangerous behavior, poor girl might catch a cold! Montanabw (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Total lack of sources to support an article on such a fringe figure. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and Montanabw. Sourcing is inadequate per WP:BIO and WP:42.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 22:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SENSATION. Non-sensational sources from which to write an objective biography simply do not exist. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete it's a funny article, but I don't think she's notable and the whole alien abduction thing seems to have been an attention-getting hoax. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete keep it in the tabloids, not this encyclopedia. Atsme 📞 📧 04:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- SNOW Delete as there's enough consensus, all questionable claims and information and nothing thoroughly convincing thus, with nothing else to suggest better, delete by all means. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. There is nothing in this article that remotely qualifies the article (only gossip covered in several sources). Just another attention hungry person looking to stay in news after her career as model is over. Not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't believe Ms Barclay had anything to do with writing this article, far more likely some random bloke thought "zomg boobies" and put fingers to keyboard. Indeed, I get the impression from the talk page and edit summaries that she is upset at all the "glamour" magazine cites and wants them removed.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 06:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, thats exactly how they seek attention and stay in news ;). In anycase, that was not the original point. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't believe Ms Barclay had anything to do with writing this article, far more likely some random bloke thought "zomg boobies" and put fingers to keyboard. Indeed, I get the impression from the talk page and edit summaries that she is upset at all the "glamour" magazine cites and wants them removed.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 06:28, 10 June 2016 (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.
- 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Brigitte Barclay
- Brigitte Barclay ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article for somebody best known for being kidnapped by aliens. The sourcing is a train-wreck of WP:BLPSOURCES-violating tabloid journalism, or otherwise just plain old "stuff on the internet", and it's saying something when the most respectable sources are The Sun and The Daily Mail. While she might be a colourful figure to listen to (if you're into that sort of thing), I can't see how this is a realistic subject for an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Entertaining article, and though while the Sun and the Mirror can occasionally be sort-of RS for celebrity info here, absent any particular GNG sourcing, the existing sources cited don't even verify the "best-known" tag (source cited speaks warmly of her, but "best-known" is not there, hence WP:SYNTH). Half the cites merely appear to verify that she's apparently been photographed in a state of inadequate clothing insufficient to keep the poor girl warm. Can't be having promotion of such dangerous behavior, poor girl might catch a cold! Montanabw (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Total lack of sources to support an article on such a fringe figure. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and Montanabw. Sourcing is inadequate per WP:BIO and WP:42.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 22:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SENSATION. Non-sensational sources from which to write an objective biography simply do not exist. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete it's a funny article, but I don't think she's notable and the whole alien abduction thing seems to have been an attention-getting hoax. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete keep it in the tabloids, not this encyclopedia. Atsme 📞 📧 04:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- SNOW Delete as there's enough consensus, all questionable claims and information and nothing thoroughly convincing thus, with nothing else to suggest better, delete by all means. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. There is nothing in this article that remotely qualifies the article (only gossip covered in several sources). Just another attention hungry person looking to stay in news after her career as model is over. Not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't believe Ms Barclay had anything to do with writing this article, far more likely some random bloke thought "zomg boobies" and put fingers to keyboard. Indeed, I get the impression from the talk page and edit summaries that she is upset at all the "glamour" magazine cites and wants them removed.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 06:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, thats exactly how they seek attention and stay in news ;). In anycase, that was not the original point. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't believe Ms Barclay had anything to do with writing this article, far more likely some random bloke thought "zomg boobies" and put fingers to keyboard. Indeed, I get the impression from the talk page and edit summaries that she is upset at all the "glamour" magazine cites and wants them removed.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 06:28, 10 June 2016 (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.