Talk:Monica Coghlan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

An entry from Monica Coghlan appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 5 August 2006.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 31, 2006. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.

I'm not sure why an American would nominate this for deletion seeing as they would have very little idea about this parochially British person, although i suspect judging from list of articles proposed for deletion someone has a grudge against people called Monica, suffice to say that Coghlan was a very notable figure in the downfall of Jeffrey Archer and was probably known throughout the country at the time. I don't see why an article should be removed just because it is short. As for the guideline for notability in wikipedia i think this covers it :Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events.Cardigan3000 02:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not disparage my work here by suggesting that I have some sort of "grudge" against persons named Monica. I have a "grudge" against only articles that do not appear to be notable. You may have noticed while checking out my user history that the AfD for someone who happened to be named Monica resulted in the deletion of the page with widespread support. As for your condescending attitude about my status as an American, I'll point out that you have edited "Ben Roethlisberger". He isn't a Brit last I checked. This article will be going to AfD, so you'll have every opportunity to make your case for its notability. Erechtheus 21:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I happen to be a Brit who lives in the USA - Pittsburgh to be exact so i am fully qualified to edit Roethlisberger if i so choose. I happen to think that your "work", as shortlived as it is, consists of going on a berzerker type rage of nominating articles for deletion, presumbably in some sort of attempt to make a name for yourself. It's quite obvious to me that you chanced upon this page whilst looking up other people called Monica, why else you would nominate someone from a timeframe and a country you are barely conversant with is beyond me. As for notability Coghlan was a central figure in probably the most notable court case in the UK during the 80s , which eventually led to one of the most notable cases in the UK in recent years, but then again you wouldnt have any idea about that. Good luck with your crusade.Cardigan3000 01:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered that it is the job of the article to tell me what may be necessary to know about its notability? If you have a more substantial case than your whining about some imagined quest that I'm on against the name Monica, make it at the AfD. Erechtheus 02:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that the role of wikipedia isn't to pander to your whims. The article is self explanatory and pithy , if you can't understand it that may have something to do with the fact that you have no idea about British news items from the 1980s . I hope you go through the whole of wikipedia nominating articles for deletion merely because you have no clue about the subject matter.

[edit] Article expansion

Now that someone has actually shown that this subject is notable, I am more than happy to see that it has received treatment here. Nice work, AnonEMouse. Erechtheus 16:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually expanding the article hasnt really shown that she is more notable. The only reason she is notable is through her connection with Jeffrey Archer which was amply demonstrated in the original article. Cardigan3000 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a fine point here. You're quite correct that the main reason she is notable is through connection with Archer, which connection the stub mentioned. However, I think what Erectheus may mean is that the stub didn't show that she was notable, in the sense that it didn't show that "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.". In other words, the stub didn't show that there were articles about her, and not just about Archer. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what google is for. If someone is going to nominate an article for deletion they should at least make an effort to see if the person in question is notable.68.71.35.93 19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No -- that's what the face of the article is for. In the world I'm familiar with, the concept is akin to a pleading. You might have a perfectly valid claim, but that claim still has to appear on the face of your pleading. Similarly, articles need to state the basis for notability. I'm not just some deletionist (nor someone with a "Monica" obsession) -- I'm somebody who is trying to contribute by literally hitting the random article button until I see an article fit for contribution by me. If that contribution is helping to flesh it out, I add things. If that something is a proposed deletion or an AfD, I do that. As Cardigan3000 has pointed out again and again, I'm an American. I'm not really the person to add depth to an article about a Brit. I can add a template that will move the article along toward either inclusion or exclusion. I would personally argue that the best person to judge an article like this one is somebody who is not particularly familiar with the subject matter. The person coming here for information about Monica Coghlan is probably situated more similarly to me than they are to Cardigan3000. Erechtheus 22:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone's notability is independent of whatever happens inside wikipedia.Cardigan3000 23:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That just isn't the case. Articles that do not establish notability are subject to speedy deletion, and (as we have witnessed) articles that establish only a minimal amount of notability are often targets for AfD. Erechtheus 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your whole rationale for contributing to wikipedia is to establish "targets" for deletion. This is the point, if you believe an article is sub-standard then alter it,the idea of nominating articles for deletion is not to spur others on to improving an article. A person's notability is totally independent of whatever an article in wikipedia says about them. The quality of an article should be irrelevant.Nowhere in the guidelines does it say that he wikipedia article has to establish notability of a subject for it to merit inclusion, that is just your opinion, in fact the guidelines for notability themselves are not official policy either. For example someone could do a lengthy and informative article about someone unsuitable for wikipedia, say their local bank manager or teacher and the quality of the article should make no difference to it being deleted. On the other hand a very notable person, and there are several that don't have a wikipedia entry at all , should not be removed merely because they have a weak article written about them. First you establish the notability of the person , then you decide whether the article should be deleted , not the other way round.Cardigan3000 18:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American wording

I don't think this has anything to do with the comments above about Americans nominating British topics for deletion or vice versa (no reason why there should be anything wrong with this, as long as standard ideas about notability are adhered to), but why is this article on a British topic written in American English? Examples include use of American date style throughout, referring to what in the UK is usually called cannabis as "marijuana", use of the rarely encountered phrase "real estate" which is much more common in the USA, calling the News of the World a magazine when everyone in Britain knows it's a tabloid newspaper, and the strange "£50 bills" instead of "£50 notes". Archer is also gratingly referred to as "Lord Jeffrey Archer". Doesn't this indicate the younger son of a duke or marquess? All this makes the article look really odd, and in accordance with the manual of style, which prescribes use of the appropriate variety of English for the topic, should be rewritten in British English. 86.134.213.12 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's cuz it was written by me, guv, an, unfortunately, that's how I write naturally. Not a matter of choice, but of ability, as the bishop said to the actress. Beggin' your pardon. If you or some other fine fellow were to rewrite it in a manner more befitting a' the Queen's English, that would be luvverly. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Date style, however, I won't take the blame for; that's an account setting, and will be formatted to display depending on how you want to see it. See Help:Preferences#Date_format. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for mockery. You have some very odd ideas about how British people speak. This has nothing to do with the "Queen's English", it's just that established Wikipedia style is to write articles in British English if they're about British topics. If I had written an article on an American topic using words and phrases off this list, I wouldn't start taking the piss when someone pointed out that it read strangely. 86.134.213.12 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No intent to offend, and an honest request for assistance. I write that way not intentionally, but because I can't write otherwise. It takes a greater degree of skill to imitate dialects than I possess - that was what I was intending to demonstrate. If you can edit the article to a more British English, please do so. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for writing it! 86.134.213.12 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All of this stems from the American gunslinger who nominated the article for nomination during one of his afd sprees. Anon put in a lot of effort to stave off that effort that looked like succeeding . He should be thanked not ridiculed. How difficult could it be to simply change the slight errors he made?