Talk:Lily Argent

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lily Argent article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability[edit]

It has been pointed out at Talk:Catherine Lynch that this article, as well as Selina Rushbrook, is not particularly notable. Should we delete it, or just leave it be in the aftermath of the Catherine Lynch AfD fiasco? Centibyte ^(talk) 20:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A speedy keep on procedural grounds (being on main page) is not cause for retaining an article long term. I think all 3 (which are similary sourced to local papers reporting local crime and a single self published book) should be nommed as a bundled group - but say a week after the main page appearance.Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all once the article is gone from the front page.--Catlemur (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one just as the rest are notable. I think :@Iridescent: agrees--BabbaQ (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of them is notable and this is not changed by the fact that they all refer to each other: a textbook example of WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Eustachiusz (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion Nomination[edit]

I have bundled this article into an AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Lynch. Centibyte ^(talk) 17:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All will be kept so just as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Lynch (2nd nomination) Centibyte ^(talk) 22:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removals, inaccuracies, and restoration[edit]

At User talk:Iridescent, an IP editor noted that this article had been severely cut back, to this, which not only has hardly any information, it gives both her birth and her married names as Bumster, which is simply inaccurate. (Note also the error "the Bumster' six children".) Johnbod reverted the removal of the top image, rejecting the edit summary argument that it was a copyright violation. After examining the history, I have restored the version of 15 April 2021, with a correction to alt text and an added wikilink in a caption.

The first edit I thereby reverted was that of Orange Sorbet on 24 May 2021. They changed the date of birth in the text but not the infobox. I am unable to check the date in Elizabeth Belcham's book, but the August date appears in this Facebook entry by the Police History of Wales, posted the month before Orange Sorbet's edit, and which is otherwise clearly based on the intro of our article. If someone can please check the book, it may be that they and Orange Sorbet are correct, but until it's checked I thinkit's best to keep the date that's in the infobox.

On 16 December 2022, IP 69.191.241.96 then made 2 changes toning down the intro and removing the names of her accomplices from it. I assume these changes were in good faith.

The huge cuts and name inaccuracy came from IP 70.19.70.167 on the same day. They were twice reverted by Knitsey, who also templated them, but resumed cutting, this time with edit summaries. These claim plagiarism / copyvio, notably this edit, which refers to "parts that were plagiarized directly from the source (line by line)". This is manifestly untrue; the removed text cited multiple sources. The previous edit claimed no source for the removed point, but the point removed from the intro is covered by a citation in the article body. (The same edit also removed cited information from a paragraph within the article body.) And I agree with Johnbod that the reason for removal of the top image, copyright, is invalid. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]