Talk:Abby Tomlinson
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 April 2017. The result of the discussion was merge to Milifandom. |
Notability[edit]
NO CONSENSUS ON NOTABILITY, CONSENSUS ON MALFORMED RFC:
There is no consensus in this RfC on whether Abby Tomlinson is notable. There is a consensus that this is a malformed RfC in that if editors wish to delete the article, they should nominate the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Cunard (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this article a joke? It reads like a college application CV. Twitter squables and hashtags are not grounds for an encyclopidic article. Notability WP:EVENT criterion certainly applies.1812ahill (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- @1812ahill: I believe this article passes WP:GNG. Not clear what your point is. Also, you have not followed the process for a WP:RFC correctly. For example, you should begin a discussion here prior to launching a RfC as stated "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others." You have also failed to follow the formatting and technical directions and posted no intelligible RfC statement. AusLondonder (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Point taken on rfc. Regarding article; can't help but think wikipedia is being used as a launch platform for a future career in politics or the media by pushy parents. If wikipedia is meant to be the equivalent of the British tabloid press in encyclopedic form then so be it. An interesting addition to the article, considering the age of the subject would be Abby's parent's connection to either the media or the Labour party.
- Btw I have nowt to do with Mensch.
- I don't think this article reads as a CV. It is well-sourced and more in-depth sourcing actually exists. I created and mostly wrote the article and I'm not a parent of Tomlinson (nor have I ever met her) so the claim this article is being used as a "launch platform" by "pushy parents" is plainly wrong.. From what I can see her parents are not involved in politics/the Labour party/the media. AusLondonder (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - The page could use some improvements but its a stretch to say that it reads like a "college application CV". However, WP:EVENT can probably be applied here. I don't see her notability outside the Milifandom. Meatsgains (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Meatsgains: If you look at the sources most of them come from the months after the general election and the Milifandom and relate to her other political and media activities. Much of the coverage is in-depth as well. AusLondonder (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Is her presence on social media and political activism after the general election notable though? Meatsgains (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- FYI - I'm not opposing the page's existence, just think it could use some cleanup :) Meatsgains (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Meatsgains: If you look at the sources most of them come from the months after the general election and the Milifandom and relate to her other political and media activities. Much of the coverage is in-depth as well. AusLondonder (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I think this RFC is a bit ill formed, if editors seek to delete the article on grounds of non-notability they should nominate the article for AFD. I can see a WP:BLP1E argument for this article to be deleted. Darwinian Ape talk 01:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- BLP1E does not apply here. Tomlinson has received significant, in-depth, on-going coverage. BLP1E applies when a person is notable exclusively for one event and "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". This is clearly not the case. AusLondonder (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know about the article but this RfC is a joke. Summoned by bot. Coretheapple (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Passes notability, but needs work. At least five non-trivial news articles about this person in reputably published, reliable sources establishes notability. That does not mean this particular text is adequate. I copyedited it a little, and flagged a few obvious things for cleanup, but even if those are fixed, most readers are going to wonder "why does Wikipedia have an article about this person?" It's unclear how this person is actually significant in and to the world at all. I've had more articles written about me than this person has (and for better reasons) but would oppose me having an article here. That said, we do need more articles on women, including living, young ones, so give some leeway. But "I used social media to get involved with political candidate, and got myself some news coverage because social media is a hot topic these days" really doesn't cut it. That's not an encyclopedia-worthy bio. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.