Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petronella Wyatt

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:57Z

Petronella Wyatt

Petronella Wyatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Procedural nom; proposed for speedy deletion with reason "She is not notable. There are a lack of unbiased published reliable sources verifying content and notability. She in her column admits to creating the article violating our conflict of interest guideline." Speedy deletion tag removed here with suggestion to "take it to AfD". Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; after reading a recent article ^[1] in the Daily Mail, I believe this Wikipedia entry has been set up as a bit of self publicity. She is a well respected journalist, not what I'd call a notable character deserving of an entry on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JT72 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Definitely can't agree with the first two reasons. Just a quick Google check turns up lots to indicate that she's notable, as well as to verify what little content there is in the article to verify — namely that she's Lord Wyatt's daughter and has written columns for the Sunday Telegraph and The Spectator, and currently writes for the Daily Mail. And of course the Boris Johnson thing is already referenced I didn't see anything immediately that verified where she went to school or her specific interview list, but I didn't look very hard, either. Even if those specifics can't be verified, it still doesn't justify deleting the article, but instead just removing that info. That she created the article herself does violate WP:AUTO, but such a violation, by itself, is not cause for article deletion. WP:AUTO discourages creating your own article, but does not absolutely forbid it. Mwelch 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - the original nominator obviously wasn't in the UK at any point in 2006; she was barely out of the news. Even without the whole Boris Johnson business she'd still pass as a major journalist. <rant>There's nothing in WP:COI to forbid writing (or citing) yourself providing you maintain NPOV and I wish all the people who prod articles with "written by the subject" as the reason would take the time to realise this.</rant> - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep She'd be notable purely for the Johnson episode but even without that she's written for major newspapers and magazines and been a fairly regular television pundit. A Google News search excluding Johnson still brings up over 200 non-trivial articles. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the article is kept the Johnson section could always be reinsterted. If PW removes it again for no good reason, and continues to do so, then she could always be blocked for a while... LessHeard vanU 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the reasons above are convincing. --Liface 03:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable UK journalist. While the origin of the page is somewhat debatable - as is Mr Wyatt's censorship of the Johnson episode - but it would seem like sour grapes to trash it, because sooner or later someone else will create it again. Nick Cooper 07:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep may orginally have been a vanity article, but she is undoubtedly notable.--Simul8 09:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above. Undeniably notable. Felixboy 11:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As all above - Adrian Pingstone 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as highly notable, SqueakBox 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is a regular commentator on and behalf of a particularly British viewpoint, representing the political bias of the publications she writes for. She has enough UK media and political presence to establish notability. LessHeard vanU 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - everything that links to it, as far as I can see, is about the Boris Johnson affair. She merits a paragraph in Boris Johnson but not an article in her own right. Js farrar 03:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above as an undeniably notable subject which passes WP:BIO with flying colors; if this article is to be deleted many children will utter petrified cries. RFerreira 05:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the convincing arguments provided above, meets WP:A and all other relevant policies for inclusion. Burntsauce 16:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - minor, but notable. Also a useful example for Wikipedia:Biography - David Gerard 19:17, 25 April 2007 (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.