Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loreen Hall

Loreen Hall

Loreen Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Request by the article subject at ticket:2018040210005718.

She writes:

The person who wrote the Wiki Stub page about me, Loreen Hall is clearly trying to discredit my achievements in British Athletics. I am a low profile person and I am not current nor famous, but in conjunction to this everything they've written is incorrect and pure speculation, accept for my name, date of birth and that I competed in the Seoul Olympic Games at 20, which was 30 yrs ago.

That Wiki page about me provides 4 source links that lead to 2 websites in total, of which both websites: 1. are not reliable sources, since they are not owned by or have been created by British Athletics or The Olympic Board 2. both websites have been created by a random person or a a fan of athletics, which is NOT reliable. 3. Both websites are flagged by google as being unsafe 4. The WIKI stub that has been written about me is filled with lies. (i.e. non of the sources they provided support what they wrote about me accept my name, date of birth and that I competed in the Seoul Olympic Games. The rest is PURE speculation on the writers behalf and made up.

An accurate Account of my Athletic Career, which does not match what is on the Wiki page about me There is ONLY one link on the whole internet that mentions a complete history of my athletic career and it leads to an interview done by the BBC, who are a HIGHLY reliable source on British athletic history. FIND AN ACCURATE ACCOUNT of my British Athletic career HERE.

At the beginning of the interview you will hear the interviewer read from a list of all my achievements. Then re-read what the Wiki stub says about me and you will see it is highly incorrect and is much more of an attempt to play down and discredit my achievements.

'Loreen Hall' Wiki Stub page Is Filled With Lies and Inaccuracies

All of the above renders the Wiki page about me 'Loreen Hall' inaccurate and totally useless and this is why I am requesting it be deleted. (Coupled with the fact I am very ill and cannot cope with the stress it is causing me).

She also writes:

I do not consider myself a public figure or celebrity. (me: WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE)

talk to !dave 20:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Related discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#What_if_someone_wants_their_article_deleted? Adam9007 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Question: Dave, is it confirmed that the requester actually is Loreen Hall? The same request has been made here on Wikipedia, and there is discussion about it as Adam linked above, but we have had no confirmation of the identity of the user making the request. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

  Ack, that's a good question. Joe jobbers unfortunately do exist, but I won't be able to fulfil that request on the OTRS side right now because I am off to bed. I do apologise. (Britishness confirmed there -- apologising for needing to go to sleep?) I'll sort it out tomorrow. talk to !dave 20:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Question FIND AN ACCURATE ACCOUNT of my British Athletic career HERE I assume "HERE" is the BBC interview? Adam9007 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would assume this was the link she gave. I'm not going to comment further here until after the other discussion gets a little further along. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Strangely, on that self-hosted link she specifically describes herself as a public figure, directly contradicting the statement above. This raises questions about the veracity of the request. The subject also runs what appears to be quite a successful business in NaturalNotts so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of this request actually coming from someone (e.g. business rival) looking to denigrate the subject's online presence. SFB 00:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sillyfolkboy: I received an email from the account -- it has a different email address to the one that is sending us emails on OTRS. Rather suspect, not?? talk to !dave 07:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

After some consideration, that is not as suspect as it seems. talk to !dave 15:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Dave: I agree it is not necessarily suspicious - it's not unusual for a person to give one email address for their Wikipedia account and use another one for their general, personal email. But the question is, is there evidence that the emails received at OTRS came from the real Loreen Hall? To me that makes all the difference in how seriously to take this request. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Participation does not confer automatic notability. Reywas92^Talk 22:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Hall passes the notability guidelines. This request is not particularly convincing. Improper use of all caps? Check. Over-the-top claim that the article is full of lies? Check. False claim that a reliable website (Sports-Reference.com) is not reliable? Check. Ploy for sympathy with sad story about health and stress? Check. Maybe I'm wrong and this request really is from Loreen Hall, but in that case she's going to have to do better if she wants to convince us. Lepricavark (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I'm struggling to find anything in the biography that could be construed as defamatory, intrusive or insulting to the subject, but there is absolutely nothing of that sort there. It's just a bare, factual account of her performances at athletics tournaments. Personally, I would take pride if I had achieved any one of the feats mentioned. The sources used are among the most reputable you could find – GBR Athletics, owned by Athletics Weekly (the foremost British publication on the sport), and Power of 10, which is the official statistical provider for British athletics. I would strongly oppose deletion on privacy grounds – Hall is a public figure as an Olympian and, by the above admission, recently spoke to the BBC to give an overview of her career. I see no reason to change our coverage here. SFB 00:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Apart from competing at the Olympics, there is other coverage of her, that has been added to the article, and correctly sourced. There's nothing (that I can see) that is untrue, or would warrant removal from a BLP point of view. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:NOLY; an individual is deemed notable for inclusion (rightly or wrongly) if they participated in a late nineteenth-century Summer Olympics, let alone one from "only" thirty years ago. No particular opinion on the veracity or otherwise of the takedown request; but note that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is pretty specifically confined to poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, only. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 09:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - as has been said, she clearly passes notability guidelines as per WP:NOLY. As Serial number points out, the deletion request does not appear to meet WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. And as Lugnuts and Sillyfolkboy correctly point out, the article does not appear salacious, but is simply a factual recitation of her career. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't help but sympathize when someone who asks for BLPREQUESTDELETE, and though I don't see anything defamatory or libelous in the article I can understand privacy concerns, but per WP:NOLYMPICS there's no way the subject is not notable for Wikipedia. Sro23 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. If a subject identified through the OTRS demonstrates information written about them being false we have nothing to justify keeping it. Taking that information out of the equation, we don't have enough remaining to claim sufficient notability.Tvx1 22:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: This is not an accurate description of the situation. The information in the article is not only neutral and verifiable by reputable sources, but it is also supported by the interview provided by the subject. It remains entirely unclear what exact facts the subject disputes, and the sourcing for all the information in the article comes from major publications and statisticians for the sport. SFB 22:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, the person sending the emails - and editing here - has not yet been confirmed to be the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)