Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chloe Khan (2nd nomination)

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 delete. There's a clear consensus to delete here, both in numbers and strength of arguments, with no prejudice against redirection. The few editors who disagreed have not made any convincing case to establish that the subject is clearly notable. Coverage in reliable sources does exist, but the case that these sources constitute "significant coverage" per the GNG has not been made. There is also an overarching agreement that if notability exists it is extremely marginal at best, and the serious and persistent issues plaguing the article are more than sufficient to err on the side of deletion. Swarm ♠ 23:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Khan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the same issues identified in the previous nomination still exist. All significant coverage cited and available in WP:BEFORE search is from non-WP:RS tabloids and unsourcable gossip sites. Some is even tabloids reporting on tabloids reporting on rumors. The only coverage in RS is either not significant (e.g., "who is Chloe {insert last name here}?") or WP:ROUTINE (e.g., "Chloe {insert last name here} is appearing..." and little more). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect back to Celebrity Big Brother 18#Chloe Khan, I originally created this as a redirect back in 2016 however come 2017 it was turned into an article, Anyway non notable BLP, As noted by the nom most if not all sources are just more or less tabloids and there doesn't appear to be anything in reliable sources, ~~Could delete however IMHO the info should be preserved incase she does actually become notable.~~ –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)(Updated 12:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Before some bright spark accuses me of canvassing - I've notified Boleyn of this discussion as although I created the article as a redirect she had turned the redirect into an actual article so it's only fair they're notified, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'm on the fence. She seems to be notable for more than just one event. The sources are tabloids, but apparently some of the UK tabloids are considered reliable for some purposes. I still question whether some of these really are reliable, for example the Metro says Khan is a "horrid person" and that sounds more like opinion than news to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Metro is saying 'the horrid person she appeared as in X Factor' or words to that effect - how she was presented, rather than how she is as a person. She did come across extremely badly, but some of that at least will have been editing. It's not the Metro's best article though, but the Metro is an accepted reliable source. Boleyn (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? I can't find much at WP:RSN. Their website is a Wordpress blog. It does not list editorial staff or policy. It seems to have "contributors" rather than journalists. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last AfD was before she took part in Celebrity Big Brother and there has been a substantial amount of coverage since. This article cites many reliable sources: The Independent, Daily Telegraph, Metro and Radio Times. All of these are accepted reliable sources and none are 'tabloid crap.' These are articles solely about her or a significant portion about her - she meets WP:BASIC. They cover not just trivial facts about her (although there is a lot of that to wade through), but information on past criminal records, controversies surrounding her participation in two of the most popular TV programmes in the UK - X Factor and Celebrity Big Brother etc. She is also not a WP:1E case - she received national media coverage originally for her appearance on X Factor and the controversies leading to her being removed from the show. However, there was then significant coverage of her modelling and finally her appearance in Celebrity Big Brother. If she was notable for one thing and had less coverage, it would be worth a redirect to that one page, but she is known - and has received a lot of media coverage in reliable sources - for more than one. Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This coverage has not changed since nomination and is not persuasive. Of the offered sources, the article in The Independent is merely an announcement of a reality show contestant line-up and has all of one half-sentence about the article subject. The Telegraph article has significant coverage, but is mostly a rehash of rumors. The Metro articles are pure tabloid gossip (e.g.: "Since entering the house on Thursday, she’s been gushing about her millionaire boyfriend, Spearmint Rhino CEO John Gray, to her housemates. ‘Everyone thinks I’m such a gold digger!’ she said.") The Radio Times article is all of two paragraphs. This is level of coverage is either not significant or not reliable or both. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect again. She is trying to become notable but appearently does not like how we are presenting her on Wikipedia based on the legal threats coming from a user claiming to be Chloe something. Legacypac (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per analysis of sources by Eggishorn. When the coverage amounts only to routine announcements, passing mentions and tabloid gossip, it is not possible to write an acceptable NPOV biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)r[reply]

Keep - This is not a popularity vote for Khan or a "I find her personality weird" noticeboard. But a !vote over if she is notable enough for inclusion. Several people above seem to forget that. From what I can see she has appeared on notable shows. And has been in the public eye for several years. Good sourcing as well. And the article could be expanded. Also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not an article, it appears to just be a collection of facts. I also agree that the sources used are not reliable. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 05:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read the newspaper articles linked to in this article, and felt that they included a lot of information about her, especially when put altogether. The sources given are reliable ones. She has also, according to the article, been a part of 4 notable shows, including 2 of the highest-rating on British TV, which does satisfy WP:ENT. I hate reality television, but I fail to see how she does not meet the criteria for inclusion. MartinJones (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Non-notable subject and not worth the paper it's written on. Redirect, if you have to, to the Celebrity Big Brother 18#Chloe Khan, as per Davey2010. It appears Davey has also inadvertently admitted to being a secret Big Brother fan, as per his initial redirect. I thought much better of you, if I'm honest! ;) Cassianto ^Talk 15:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooo Cass I don't watch that trash noooo not me!, Never watched it in my entire life...., Just did some research that's all .... yes that's it did a bit of research! :) –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - article seems to have a fair bit of coverage and probably passes WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother 18 per BB fan Davey. If there's notability, its very VERY bare, and to be honest the number of legal threats, and sources from gossip sections makes it virtually impossible to write an article that would be NPOV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is possible to argue notability but it's at best borderline. As a user claiming to be Chloe Khan has requested the page be taken down with a threat of legal action, I think a courtesy BLP delete may be appropriate here. Deryck C. 10:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPREQUEST is only granted to those that aren't notable, As she is notable or borderline notable BLPREQ would be ruled out here, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that she is notable therefore WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't apply is sort of assuming an outcome to the discussion, isn't it? Her notability is what we are trying to establish and there are a number of editors above (myself obviously included) who don't believe that she is. If she is not, then the request does apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for the correct policy - What I also wanted to say was that "BLPREQ usually applies if all the AFD participants !vote Delete per BLPREQ" but the comment just looked confusing, Usually BLPREQ would only apply if there's next to no sources online and basically wasn't notable enough to have an article, If everyone here agreed "yup she meets BLPREQ" then it would be deleted but as the !votes are balanced it more or less means it doesn't apply here - Ofcourse it still may be deleted but not under BLPREQ if that makes sense, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is certainly questionable. Subject doesn't want the page and this borderline notability combined equals delete pretty easily. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- marginal notability and on-going BLP issues. There are two ANI threads related to this article at the moment. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2017 (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.