Talk:Heroine of Hackney

Deletion

I propose deleting this page entirely. It is clearly not the sort of thing that should be on wikipedia. Pascal (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Lachlanusername (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It went viral, so maybe merge into list of Internet phenomena?74.131.99.14 (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it's not like it's something everyone has seen, and with the riots still ongoing, it feels a lot like a human interest story from a newspaper. This is not a newspaper. I would agree to it being resurrected after the end of the riots, so long as it is notable beyond some viewers saying she should carry the olympic flame. Pascal (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that WP:DEL#REASON was adequately considered before the PROD tag was placed. I don't see much benefit in removing the PROD tag now, so perhaps we'll simply see where things stand in 6 days. This doesn't seem to be the correct place for a deletion discussion, although in any such discussion I would expect WP:NEWSEVENT and WP:EFFECT to be cited. --Trevj (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

My reasoning was that not only is it unsuitable content for an encyclopaedia, it could easily be economically merged into the main article on the riots. Unless something significant happens regarding the video or the woman (i.e. after the riots end), I don't think there is sufficient reason for this to have its own page. Sure it's notable right now, but events must be allowed to unfold before the significance and notability of the video and the woman can be properly assessed. Not to mention the ridiculously long article title. I agree that we should see where things stand after 6 days, it is unlikely that the riots will continue till then. Pascal (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Unsuitable" on what grounds? WP:EFFECT states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. Thankfully the riots have now calmed. --Trevj (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

On the basis that other articles about videos exist due to the importance of the video - the content of the video is crucial, not necessarily the context. This video is only famous because of the riots, for obvious reasons. Why not have a page for every million-hit video of the riots? Currently, there is no reason I can see for having an article that stands apart, at this current juncture. I'm more than prepared to back down, if the situation changes. It may be that the woman herself becomes more important than the video, in which case the article will need a major overhaul. I'm more than prepared to back down, but at the moment merging this article with the reaction section of the main riots page seems only logical. _{And yes, it is good that the riots have calmed.} Pascal (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on WP:CRYSTAL and WP:EFFECT, I would oppose a merge into 2011 England riots because IMO it's rather too early to make a judgement on the effects. Equally, I accept that WP:NOTNEWS may apply. If the article remains and metamorphoses into a piece about the person, then much of the current content could remain within a subsection. --Trevj (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears the PROD has been removed by an IP. I pretty sure I was arguing against consensus the entire time, so I won't put it up again. But I am worried about the length of the lead, compared to the rest of the article. Thoughts? Pascal (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Is everyone still certain that this article conforms to notability guidelines? I have my doubts. She's only famous for one event and it seems to be like this is temporary fame, no matter the number of comparisons with MLK. The consensus is probably way against me, but I thought I'd raise my lingering worries. Pascal (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It should behas been moved back to Heroine of Hackney, per WP:BIO1E (currently awaiting WP:CSD#G6). --Trevj (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Concise title

WP:TITLE states [...] titles are expected to be concise, and not overly long. The current title simply mimics that of the original video. I agree that a shorter title should be settled on in the future. If/when the video receives further coverage in the media, a common title may then become apparent (perhaps we already have one, in Heroine of Hackney - not Hackney Herione, which may ambiguously infer an article about heroin from Hackney). Any editor can simply move the article to a new title and/or create further redirects. --Trevj (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Now moved to Heroine of Hackney. --Trevj (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, since my edits have been reverted, I'd like to ask how is this article titled "Heroine of Hackney"? What is that? It's a BLP and so should be under her actual name, not something conjured up by someone. Also a BLP should have a Personal life section - especially when it was properly referenced. Fine, if the article is deleted, but my edits were good as far as I can see.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for reverting some parts of the edits. The article was originally titled Truly extraordinary speech by fearless West Indian woman in face of Hackney rioters, that being the name of the video. This being rather a mouthful, it was changed to the common name, which seems to be a comparable title to other videos listed at List of Internet phenomena#Videos. The article is (currently) about the event not the person (hence the italics), per WP:BIO1E. Pearce's name now redirects to Heroine of Hackney and is still included in the lead. If she becomes notable in the future for other events, then I expect a separate bio would be made, or this article could metamorphose into more of a bio. As this article is about the video, it would seem to me that the Personal life section isn't entirely appropriate (especially the number and ages of family members). However, I'm aware of WP:NOTYOURS and of course will go with consensus, e.g. perhaps the slipped disc is relevant because of the stick in the video, the birthplace too. As long as material satisfies WP:BLP policies then I guess it's fine. I hope that makes some sense. Apologies again. --Trevj (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

References behind paywalls

Revealed: ‘Heroine of Hackney’ who dared to take on the rioters, behind The Times's paywall. --Trevj (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dubious reporting

This edit adds The speech reportedly silenced both rioters and police, while receiving applause from onlookers. IMO the word "reportedly" should not be removed without further reliable source(s) being added to confirm this. The reason is that the quoted article (The New Age (South African newspaper)) also claims [...] was filmed confronting hundreds of rioters as they rampaged through her neighbourhood [...] which seems to be omitted from the numerous other reports! The former "reportedly" bit seems less dubious and worthy of inclusion in that form. --Trevj (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There's at least one other report, so perhaps it's not such an issue. However, "hundreds of rioters" is still probably best omitted. --Trevj (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Biographical information

Moved to Talk:Pauline Pearce § Biographical information

 – Trevj (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The bot-added biography tag was previously removed. With more information about the woman now becoming available, I have some questions:

1. The article still reads OK (IMO) without the woman's full name being mentioned, and there is currently no redirect in place from Pauline Pearce. Should any name inclusion continue to be avoided, if possible?
2. WP:ONEEVENT indicates that a biographical article would currently be inappropriate. Should the article be added (again) to WP:WPBIO, in case issues arise as a result of future edits?

Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Due to recent edits, I've replaced the tag. --Trevj (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)