- 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 deleted -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Catherine Bosley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A local (regional?) TV news anchorwoman who appeared in the news a lot due to a single incident of inappropriate behaviour not directly related to her TV job. Fails WP:BIO1E on this basis - not only are all the reliable sources that discuss her in detail mainly about the controversial incident and its ramifications, but also the incident has had no lasting significance and is not the subject of ongoing coverage in reliable sources. In cases where a WP:BLP subject is either not notable or only borderline notable, we err on the side of doing least harm. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion has been linked at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard due to repeated past discussion of the article there. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would be entirely comfortable with us deleting the article per Demiurge's comments above. The only "notable" (nontrivial independent coverage) here seems to stem from this single event and its repercussions; without it, there is no basis for an article, and per BLP1E we should not draw notability from a single ephemeral event like this. Andrew Gray ( talk) 21:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I find it odd that this article has been up for nearly 9 years, and for most of that time has been in deplorable shape...no references, poor sentence structure, but it never got deleted then. So now, after I put in a lot of work to add references and clean things up, NOW you want to delete it. That just doesn't sit right...where was the hurry to delete it when it had sat dormant for years in horrible shape? Vjmlhds (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, it sucks, it's really stupid, and very unfair. It's been through the wrangler at WP:BLPN three times, and no-one thought (perhaps) that we just really don't need such an article. I am sorry that it wastes your time. Just to dispel any possible notions; I had never heard of Bosley before seeing her mentioned at BLPN, and I don't remember hearing of her outside Wikipedia even after that. (I don't live in the USA.) -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 22:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- The "hurry" isn't a hurry at all. I tagged it for notability a few months ago. I left it alone. But you decided to remove the tag, several times, even though it was being discussed and had been restored by separate editors. That's the biggest reason for the "hurry" Niteshift36 ( talk) 00:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm surprised it was never nominated, but I suppose better late than never. I've had this on my watchlist for eight years or so (after discovering vandalism & cleaning it up back in 2006) and a couple of times when I've seen it crop up I think "...do we really need this page after all?". But I never quite got around to doing anything about it...
Andrew Gray (
talk) 22:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- User:Niteshift36 deserves credit for making clear the real issue. I've been aware of this problem for a long time but never really took it forward properly. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 00:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm surprised it was never nominated, but I suppose better late than never. I've had this on my watchlist for eight years or so (after discovering vandalism & cleaning it up back in 2006) and a couple of times when I've seen it crop up I think "...do we really need this page after all?". But I never quite got around to doing anything about it...
Andrew Gray (
talk) 22:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per BLP1E. I had to strip (ha!) a mess of BLP-infringing material out of this article in 2006. That's how long this has been a problem. If we're still having issues with this article, and it's still in poor shape, then it's time for it to go. Is she notable? Well, show me independent RS coverage of her career that has nothing to do with the incident and I will reassess my !vote. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Well, the article isn't really in "poor" shape, after the work I put in on it. I believe there's enough there keep the article. Getting fired from her job for nudie pics was one story which got national press, and suing Hustler (and winning) was another. It's not really a continuation of the first story. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO1E Malke 2010 ( talk) 00:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. In the end, this is BLP1E. Simply being a news anchor doesn't make someone notable. Simply having a public job doesn't do it. Being on TV doesn't. If we look at look at WP:CREATIVE, She doesn't meet those criteria. She hasn't done anything notable as a journalist. No notable awards. She simply has a job. Local mentions in the media don't do it, as notability requires significant coverage. So we're left with her Key West escapades. As I said on my talk page, the Hustler lawsuit is merely an extension of the same event. If item A (the pictures) didn't happen, item B simply doesn't exist. The fact that there were a couple of years in between doesn't negate that. Maybe if this had been a different set of pictures or some "stolen" home video, you might have a (weak) case. I can't see how one is divorced of the other. Niteshift36 ( talk) 00:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per BLP1E. The article is simply a place to coatrack the "controversy" section—omg someone was nude and there was a flutter of excitement. No notability past BLP1E. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Im unable to find sources to establish notability base on her job as a news anchor. National coverage points to a single event, BLP1. -- Jmundo ( talk) 14:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No criticism is meant by this toward the editors who have worked on this article in good faith, but this is the epitome of BLP1E. Worse, keeping articles like this (especially when they fail the BLP1E criteria) is a really good way to make sure Wikipedia doesn't lose its reputation as a boys' club that uses plausibly deniable excuses to shame and belittle women and keep them in their place, over there. Geez people. -- NellieBly ( talk) 20:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (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 deleted -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Catherine Bosley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A local (regional?) TV news anchorwoman who appeared in the news a lot due to a single incident of inappropriate behaviour not directly related to her TV job. Fails WP:BIO1E on this basis - not only are all the reliable sources that discuss her in detail mainly about the controversial incident and its ramifications, but also the incident has had no lasting significance and is not the subject of ongoing coverage in reliable sources. In cases where a WP:BLP subject is either not notable or only borderline notable, we err on the side of doing least harm. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion has been linked at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard due to repeated past discussion of the article there. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would be entirely comfortable with us deleting the article per Demiurge's comments above. The only "notable" (nontrivial independent coverage) here seems to stem from this single event and its repercussions; without it, there is no basis for an article, and per BLP1E we should not draw notability from a single ephemeral event like this. Andrew Gray ( talk) 21:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I find it odd that this article has been up for nearly 9 years, and for most of that time has been in deplorable shape...no references, poor sentence structure, but it never got deleted then. So now, after I put in a lot of work to add references and clean things up, NOW you want to delete it. That just doesn't sit right...where was the hurry to delete it when it had sat dormant for years in horrible shape? Vjmlhds (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, it sucks, it's really stupid, and very unfair. It's been through the wrangler at WP:BLPN three times, and no-one thought (perhaps) that we just really don't need such an article. I am sorry that it wastes your time. Just to dispel any possible notions; I had never heard of Bosley before seeing her mentioned at BLPN, and I don't remember hearing of her outside Wikipedia even after that. (I don't live in the USA.) -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 22:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- The "hurry" isn't a hurry at all. I tagged it for notability a few months ago. I left it alone. But you decided to remove the tag, several times, even though it was being discussed and had been restored by separate editors. That's the biggest reason for the "hurry" Niteshift36 ( talk) 00:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm surprised it was never nominated, but I suppose better late than never. I've had this on my watchlist for eight years or so (after discovering vandalism & cleaning it up back in 2006) and a couple of times when I've seen it crop up I think "...do we really need this page after all?". But I never quite got around to doing anything about it...
Andrew Gray (
talk) 22:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- User:Niteshift36 deserves credit for making clear the real issue. I've been aware of this problem for a long time but never really took it forward properly. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 00:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm surprised it was never nominated, but I suppose better late than never. I've had this on my watchlist for eight years or so (after discovering vandalism & cleaning it up back in 2006) and a couple of times when I've seen it crop up I think "...do we really need this page after all?". But I never quite got around to doing anything about it...
Andrew Gray (
talk) 22:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per BLP1E. I had to strip (ha!) a mess of BLP-infringing material out of this article in 2006. That's how long this has been a problem. If we're still having issues with this article, and it's still in poor shape, then it's time for it to go. Is she notable? Well, show me independent RS coverage of her career that has nothing to do with the incident and I will reassess my !vote. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Well, the article isn't really in "poor" shape, after the work I put in on it. I believe there's enough there keep the article. Getting fired from her job for nudie pics was one story which got national press, and suing Hustler (and winning) was another. It's not really a continuation of the first story. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO1E Malke 2010 ( talk) 00:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. In the end, this is BLP1E. Simply being a news anchor doesn't make someone notable. Simply having a public job doesn't do it. Being on TV doesn't. If we look at look at WP:CREATIVE, She doesn't meet those criteria. She hasn't done anything notable as a journalist. No notable awards. She simply has a job. Local mentions in the media don't do it, as notability requires significant coverage. So we're left with her Key West escapades. As I said on my talk page, the Hustler lawsuit is merely an extension of the same event. If item A (the pictures) didn't happen, item B simply doesn't exist. The fact that there were a couple of years in between doesn't negate that. Maybe if this had been a different set of pictures or some "stolen" home video, you might have a (weak) case. I can't see how one is divorced of the other. Niteshift36 ( talk) 00:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per BLP1E. The article is simply a place to coatrack the "controversy" section—omg someone was nude and there was a flutter of excitement. No notability past BLP1E. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Im unable to find sources to establish notability base on her job as a news anchor. National coverage points to a single event, BLP1. -- Jmundo ( talk) 14:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No criticism is meant by this toward the editors who have worked on this article in good faith, but this is the epitome of BLP1E. Worse, keeping articles like this (especially when they fail the BLP1E criteria) is a really good way to make sure Wikipedia doesn't lose its reputation as a boys' club that uses plausibly deniable excuses to shame and belittle women and keep them in their place, over there. Geez people. -- NellieBly ( talk) 20:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (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.