Talk:Helen Steel

Untitled

Hi, Rosguill ^talk

It has been suggested that Steel is not notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. Heres my response to that; The spycops scandal and undercover police inquiry in the UK is very big news. We only have public inquiries in the UK very very rarely, if the state is implicated in very serious potentially unlawful action against its citizens. (So the other public inquiries in recent years are into Bloody Sunday, and the Grenfell Tower Fire). That Steel has been central to both that scandal, and McLibel, and that the spycops operation was not due to Mclibel but to other environmental activism with Greenpeace, I think does make her notable. She is very well known figure in the history of UK activism in the last 3 decades. I'm carrying on adding citations. Bear with me, and then lets discuss again if you still have doubts? It is more likely that I'm not giving her enough credit rather than she is not notable! Thanks ClarityRandom ClarityRandom (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Copied this discussion from my talk page over to here as I think it will be useful for other editors: oubts? It is more likely that I'm not giving her enough credit rather than she is not notable! Will repeat this on her talk page ClarityRandom The additional sources are a step in the right direction. However, I do want to clarify one thing which you may have been unclear (and I apologize if you're already familiar with this), but notability has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia; it is not a synonym for important or significant, but rather is a measure of the amount of attention that a subject has received from reliable sources. Specifically, the general litmus test is known as the general notability guide aka GNG. Based on your arguments, it is possible that Steel is notable, but that remains to be seen from the sources that can be assembled. signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I was looking at the notability criteria, and was considering that Steel was notable for her central role in 2 particularly notable - 'events': the policing inquiry (spycops) and McLibel - which are both very important in terms of current affairs. There are tonnes of reliable references to her in the McLibel Article, (which I didn't think were necessary to just reproduce on this page - do you think they should be added in to Steel's article?). There's loads about her in the Spycops coverage too - I'll add more references as I go ClarityRandom (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to add I seem to be getting conflicting information about the criteria for notability - so I'm guessing the criteria are interpreted differently by different people - but there are just loads of reputable reliable sources for Helen Steel, you could just carry on going for months and there must be appoint where you stop. Shouldn't this conversation be on the talk page of Steels article though so others can see it? I will copy our conversation over to there, and lets discuss it there where other contributers can see it ClarityRandom (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC) ClarityRandom (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Their participation in these events does not automatically make them independently notable. Really, significant coverage in reliable sources which demonstrate notability outside of these events is needed for wikipedia to have a biography on them. Of course people become notable because of their participation in specific events. But what is really needed are sources discussing these individuals outside of the context of the event(s) itself to satisfy the notability criteria. Maybe the sources already do this, but alternatively maybe a merge into the event(s) pages themselves would be more appropriate. However, the fact that there are two events this person is known for maybe tilts the balance towards keeping this biography. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Polyamorph Thanks for your contribution, the thing is I am not reading the criteria that you state on the relevant policy pages, which although mention excluding people notable for only one event, that isn't the case here, as its at least 2 very significant events that Steel has been central to. The references here meet the criteria of multiple, independent, reliable, and in-depth secondary sources. But to your point about sources that discuss them outside the events they are notable for, I also cant see anything in the policies that states this, rather that they need sources that are about them, and that are in-depth, independent, reliable, etc etc - theres at least 2 very in-depth ones about her that for that in this articles references, and then a load of others beside those with less in depth coverage about her, but giving substantial coverage of her involvement in the events. Another thing I'm wondering about is that there are so many bio's on Wikipedia that don't come anywhere near the standard you are suggesting, or whats already been added to this article. I'll carry on making edits, and comparing whats here to other bio's - but don't want to unnecessarily repeat similar references (Rosguill is giving a different opinion to yours, saying that its the number of references that matter - but again that isn't what the policy says, instead the opposite - that its actually better to have just a couple of good ones than a load of less in depth ones) ClarityRandom (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)