Talk:Petronella Wyatt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-04-23. The result of the discussion was Keep.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Petronella Wyatt, has edited Wikipedia as
Pandapandapie (talk · contribs)
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Petronella Wyatt, has edited Wikipedia as
Petronellawyatt (talk · contribs)

Contents

[edit] Article initially self written

This entry was written by the subject herself as she writes here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=450045&in_page_id=1770 and should therefore be deleted according to Wikipedia guidelines 81.223.241.73 07:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's notable that Ms Wyatt's newspaper article makes several claims of content supposedly added that aren't actually bourne out by checking the page history, unless they've been deleted by an admin. Ms Wyatt also removed the paragraph about her affair with Boris Johnson (not mentioned in the Mail article), although it is still mentioned on his page and is fairly well documented (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). Nick Cooper 15:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Nothing in the logs [4].Geni 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Something was added here [5] that she then deleted herself, though of course it's much less dramatic than she claims in her column... Moyabrit (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
And it does trace to Charlottesville, VA. Moyabrit (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
For a similar controversy, you may want to visit the talk page for American author Dean Radin. He initiated his article, admitted it (not knowing fully the rules); the article was nominated for deletion, and ultimately kept. Anyway, here are the relevant Wiki policy articles: Wikipedia:Autobiography and Biographies of living persons. 209.26.38.244 17:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this person notable?

So, Ms Wyatt has now ammended the discussion to make it clear that she wrote this herself. Now could we please have a look at WP:BIO to see if she meets guidelines to be considered a notable person. The two relevant criteria I can find are :

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person

and

Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work

Whilst she's published, as far as I'm aware her work does not receive multiple independent reviews or awards. And let's be honest, if she hadn't been Boris Johnson's bit on the side the general public would have no idea who she is. I don't think being the mistress of an MP is much of an achievement, but if it is I think it's adequately covered on his page. I'd tag this page for deletion but it's locked.Gemmaanna 19:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ack, "mother of his alleged mistress, Petronella Wyatt" comma placement confused me. Sorry for the removal. Cary Bass demandez 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Boris Johnson is a bit more than a standard MP. While he isn't John Profumo he is definetly one of the more recogniseable conservative MPs.Geni 20:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. The way she entered and edited her original text makes me think that she was testing Wikipedia as a whole. She included such giveaways as "glamorous" as to her own person, and "eccentric" (Hungarian baroness), as to her mother's details. Did she realise, these two items would have been the first things to be removed in any encyclopaedia, and sure enough, it was in Wikipedia? In fact, we were true to the nature of Wikipedia and did what we should.
The fact that this other person came and added what she did without registering, does however bring me back to the fact that we are leaving ourselves wide open to widespread vandalism by giving access to unregistered editors. I know, registered users can if they want to be most controversial too, but at least it would stop the wearying misuse, wearying to us editors who are trying to contain the problemes within a minimum. One day also, someone will throw a defamation suit at us, are we ready to meet that? 80.47.34.132 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't signed in, how ironic. Dieter Simon 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Wikipedia

I find it rather astounding that someone has deleted this section, since it's what seems to have brought most people to this page recently! Nick Cooper 07:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a poorly-written repeat of what has been discussed many, many times here and elsewhere. It was not relevant. Gary Kirk [Talk] 07:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
How can something published yesterday have been, "discussed many, many times here and elsewhere"? Nick Cooper 11:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
because they were the same standard criticisms. Unless we are going to have a section on every single one of her columns ever it makes no sense to have a section on the one where she mentions wikipedia.Geni 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, unless this article is of outstanding note in her career, the Daily Mail article itself is not worth noting. -- Zanimum 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I came here out of curiosity after noticing that article myself. Personally, I'm a little disappointed the whole bare-breasted hunting and random screaming attacks were either fabricated to give good copy, or the result of a hypnogogic episode. Although I am amused to note that as I have the ability to edit articles I am by definition a "hacker", and that a Wiki employee "said he had rarely come across a case as bad". Maybe said employee wants to go and hang around the Dubya or Beckham pages... Slavedriver 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rel statis

She is notable but more to the point, she is cute and this article does not give her marital status. From an admirer, obviously. --81.105.243.17 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)