Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Ridley

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. >Radiant< 09:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Ridley[edit]

Virginia Ridley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Googling the name reveals no notable sources, the subject is apparently not notable at all. Splintercellguy 05:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If the article were moved to and made primarly about her husband, Alvin, it would probably fly. I recall seeing one of those Bill Kurtis A&E shows about this case (probably American Justice), so I'd imagine there are indeed news sources available about his trial. I'll abstain from voting since I don't think it matters too much whether this one is deleted and then later an Alvin Ridley created with a Virginia Ridley redirect, or if this one is just moved itself. Mwelch 06:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't recall this even really reaching minor-grade sensation. --Dhartung | Talk 09:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 07:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ten Pound Hammer. There are sufficient references, especially if it was covered on a cable TV show. I'm not thrilled about having articles like this, but it's good enough for the rules we have. YechielMan 13:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as poorly sourced BLP -- I may seem to be out of phase here, but this article, more than some other recent articles, seems a BLP problem with respect to her husband. Though acquitted, he was charged with homicide. How do we know this? From two UK tabloids (though it happened in the US), a web site, and a possibly fictionalized video made on the subject of the trial, about which we have information only from IMdB. I don't trust the IMdB entry: the woman a/c the WP article, died of natural causes in 1999. According to IMdB, she was played by herself in the 2001 video. Not surprisingly, there is no photo available there. It's asserted there that he played himself as well, from which it could be implied that he sought publicity, but we can't satisfy BLPO from an inference based on an IMdB entries, and an IMdB entry source that contradicts the WP article at that. (I realize this could be perceived as POINT, but I honestly think the article is dubious. I do support the BLP policy, but I want the consensus here to make the decision.) DGG 00:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As I mentioned above, I've personally seen that episode of American Justice. It is not fictionalized nor re-enacted in any way. There are no acted scenes. It's just a news documentary look at the case, including interviews. IMDB is not saying that the people involved "played" themselves in acted scenes or anything like that. Just that they appeared in the show as themselves . . . which is how the would list any news show that contains interviews. There isn't any reason to assume "publicity-seeking" on the part of her husband than there is to to assume such of anyone else who grants a TV news interview. I agree that using IMDB specifically as a source can be somewhat dubious (and I suspect in their listing her, they're referring to her depiction in photographs of her as a young adult; indeed, one of the key points of this case was that she became such a recluse over her adult life that until she died, hardly anyone in town other than her husband even knew she existed), but I don't think that's the intention here, though. I think the intent is to cite the show itself. IMDB is just where the show's info was found by the editor who cited it. Citing the show is perfectly appropriate as a WP:RS, since, as I said, the show was a news documentary. Mwelch 06:22, 28 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virginia_Ridley&oldid=1078524719"