Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:33, 5 January 2008

Natasha Collins

Natasha Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A short biographical article about a recently deceased person, which was originally nominated for speedy deletion. I really have no opinion on this, but feel that the wider view of the community should be gauged before a decision on whether or not to delete is made Egdirf (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep undeniably notable for her life if not her death. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Her notability is easily deniable. See WP:BIO1E - people known only for one event. The only references here relate to her death; there's no evidence presented of notability outside of it. TheBilly (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mark Speight, I don't see much notability asserted here by herself, IMDb only lists 2 shows. -- lucasbfr 12:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  Her notability is as a BBC TV presenter, which isn't really IMDB's area. --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  Ow ok, every time I check a TV Host on imdb, I get plenty of hits for each show they presented. Mmm, "Natasha Collins" bbc -death -police in google shows no significant English results. I don't see significant coverage. -- lucasbfr 13:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Same as Dweller. --Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Being the girlfriend of someone notable does not transfer notability. However, it would be very useful to have a redirect pointing to the section about her in Mark Speight's article TheBilly (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I feel she was an independent person and her death may have nothing to do with her boyfriend, she was a presenter of note and people will look her up, admittedly largely because of her untimely demise. Kateab (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But her notability isn't established. I don't thik it's unlikely she's notable if she was an "actor and BBC presenter", but if nobody is going to prove it then the article deserves deletion. This shouldn't be a straw poll about whether we feel sorry for dead people; AfD debates are about the merits of articles based on the Misplaced Pages guidelines, and currently the article fails them TheBilly (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep She had her own individual career separate to that of Mark Speight. This entitles her to the right to her own article. It's like saying if the Queen Elizabeth died, we'd put her onto the Duke of Edinburgh's page. CycloneNimrod (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• She had a career so that entitles her to her own article? That covers every worker in the world ... WWGB (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete She had her own individual career - which wasn't notable enough to get her a page before she passed on. --EndlessDan 13:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Speight's article. She's only really notable for being some guy's dead girlfriend. Lugnuts (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Endlessdan --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• She wasn't a BBC presenter (the closest she got was being an actress on a children's puzzle programme nine years ago) and the fact that people are discussing her as if she was, and this not even being questioned until now, suggests rather strongly to me that nobody knows who she was, she isn't notable in the Misplaced Pages sense and the article should therefore be deleted. But hey, it's your own stupid fault for having such restrictive rules on notability in the first place. - Q4
• Keep: I believe this entry meets notability requirements. Agree with Dweller on this one. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Speight's article. Chris (クリス) (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - on the basis that she just about reaches notability (you could easily argue it the other way), but more importantly that we don't know yet about the circumstances or causes of her death, and hence redirecting to Speight sets a legally conclusive precedent which is highly liebelous for the Wiki foundation. If we delete now, it will only get recreated by a Anon. I'd like to see this one re-debated in at least two weeks if not four, when further details will be confirmed by reliable Media and Police sources. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Dweller - Brochco (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As the story only broke this morning, it is unlikely that a Google search would throw up much just now. Surely the test of her notability will be if there is an obituary in tomorrow's Times. Brochco (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In fact this is the contrary, 100% of the google hits are related to her death. -- lucasbfr 17:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
      • So they are. My apologies for that. I actually considered creating this article myself when the story first broke, but couldn't find much about her at that stage, so decided I wouldn't. My comments really relate to that. I think it should be kept though - for the time being at least and until further details become available. Brochco (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
        • There isn't an obituary, although her death is reported on page 5. I'd still like to see this article kept though, for the reasons I stated above. Brochco (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - had not been notable before her death, only reason of notability is because her death involves a children's TV presenter and his subsequent arrest, which will explain why this is seen to be as scandalous. The bottom line to this is I want to point out that this site is not IMDB (she has her own profile, so why not contribute there instead). Willirennen (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep As per most of the above. Tilefish (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep But hold off on the adding of pointless speculation until the facts are known, rather than copy & paste from BBC news just for the sake of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.84.157 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Who is she? A minor actress, that's it. Just because she's dead, it doesn't make her famous. Just as it's inappropriate to list dead animals, no matter how 'famous' they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.50.159 (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no significant coverage, as per Lucasbfr. Only became notable after death, hence the creation of the page today. Most sources that relate to her previous history are from the current news stories, therefore only notable for this event. Rt. 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NOTABILITY, consistent with the conclusions reached here - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander. That's the Misplaced Pages line, but as I've said before - "I believe that it's a depressing prospect that sensation lovers are leading an encyclopedia by the nose. Allowing the media to determine what is and isn't notable is a bad joke.... I bet we wouldn't be having this arguement if it was an ugly middle aged man who had been murdered. I think that WP needs to establish a specific guideline - I've no idea how to go about it.". Topically there's another similar debate going on here, it would be interesting to see how consistent the WP procedures are over all the similar instances. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Hey, I don't regard myself as a sensation hunter. I just look for subjects to create articles about is all. Although I didn't create this one, I thought about it - as I would have done had it been a middle aged man. Brochco (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, I was very surprised there wasn't already an article about her, I recognise her face very well, though that is perhaps because I'm too often awake at 5am watching see it saw it reruns (and that program apparently doesnt have a page either, so clearly thats not a notability provider). The people who are voting delete do have policy on side. However, if it is deleted, it will definitely, as someone said, be recreated within hours. Which would mean that if it were to be deleted it would need to be salted, which I disagree with as an option at this juncture because more developments might change the situation or blah blah and we shouldnt have to, in that case, rely on busy admins to care, because they don't always. Plus, there's nothing wrong with giving it a couple of days til the attention dies down and the deletion can be cleaner. So weak keep. Jdcooper (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment People might want to keep an eye on the article as the afd notice had been removed. Hiding T 19:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per "WP:NOTABILITY" how was this ever considered for a speedy deletion is beyond me. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep if and only if we can show that her life was more notable than her death (no disrespect to her but people are murdered all the time, doesn't in itself make her notable). • Anakin 19:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but expand. It looks like a reasonable case can be made to say she should have had a page anyhow, so let's make the page she should have had while alive.--Nickpheas (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Done quite enough in her career to be listed, untimely death is beside the point. Paste (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• delete the page was only created after her death. if she were notable for her life it would have been created earlier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.14.123 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Other articles have been created following a person's death, and I don't seem to recall all this fuss over those. I want to draw people's attention to Trish Williamson as an example. She only really rose to prominance because she was a weathergirl on TV-AM, and somebody's daughter. The article concerning her was created following her death in a motoring accident late last year. Where do we draw the line folks? Should Natasha Collins be deleted simply because her life was cut short, and she didn't get to achieve as much as she might? I think not. 86.147.219.233 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Needs expansion, though. D.M.N. (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Whoever proposed this for deletion needs their head testing. There are some exceptional circumstances regarding her death and her breath career is worth mentioning alone. The article simply needs improvement. Tom Green (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to an appropriate section of Mark Speight. Her career lasted less than two years -- a handful of television acting roles have surfaced, that's all. She appears to have done nothing of note since her accident in 2000. Had it not been for the unfortunate circumstances of her death, no one would be requesting an article for her. WP:BIO1E applies. --Popplewick (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Objection to keeping the article seems to be that Ms Collins was only a minor celebrity in life and that she is only notable as a consequence of her unusual death. I think (plainly speaking without meaning to sound callous) that the combination of "minor celebrity" + "unusual death" = notable. The news story is not finished. We don't know the cause of death and whether there will be any criminal charges resulting from it (to anyone). It would be churlish and disrespectful to try and second guess these outcomes and on this premise we should not make a rash decision to delete the article IMHO. Rrsmac (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as tv presenter. Her career, while short, existed. Had she lived longer, she may have been even more notable than she is now. Editorofthewiki (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. She was a notable person. --Paukrus (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Remember, James Dean starred in only three films before his untimely death in 1955. 81.152.144.31 (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Unlike Natasha Collins. Actually, I'd be quite happy to see Misplaced Pages cover less notable people (I thought of requesting an article on Emma Fitch, for example - Fitch was the woman who did the Kelly Homes tattoo hoax, and from the publicity for that alone, is probably more notable than Natasha Collins ever was), but I don't think it's going to happen. My vote would be keep, provided that this set a precedent for the lowering of notability requirements. -88.109.27.53 (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• James Dean was already famous before his death, plus he is still notable after his death, and what about Ms Collins, she wasn't notable before her death and I am very doubtful that she will be when Easter comes considering there is nothing memorable about her career. Also this article had been created following her death, so in this case I don't this article will ever survive and I don't think the notability requirements should be lowered as we got too many junk articles. Willirennen (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, her death has made the national headlines in the UK, so she has some notoriety.(A. Carty (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC))
• Keep she is obviously notable as she is in the papers and on the news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.160.2 (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2008

• Comment on above lot, I do question on those with a keep nomination, are you nominating keep because of the recent drugs death prompted you to google her name and you found this and because it is in a AfD nomination, you decided to vote keep for the sake of it. Ask yourself this, have you heard of her before her death, if no, then ask yourself why are you voting keep, is it because it is another "celebrity". Other than that, a drugs death involving a children's TV presenter is going to create more media attention that a porn actor's death would, why, if you are a parent, would you feel scandalised that a drugs death involves a children's TV presenter. Not to mention that all publicity only concerns her death and nothing before it. Willirennen (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates