Talk:Gail Trimble

Notability

Will there be a sweepstake on the exact date this article will be deleted as non-notable? --81.170.64.24 (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it should ever be, this entry isn't, and he won in 1980 - bingo9922:57, 24 February 2009

When the dust has settled, what will come out of this is a case study of how the British media - and society - compare and contrast her with Jade Goody. It's the reaction to her success that has been notable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling this would become an article, and for what it's worth, I agree with the above comments. She's notable at the moment because of the media coverage, but in a few months' time we might be asking who she is. Does anyone remember last years's winner? She deserves a mention in the University Challenge article as its highest point scorer, but I'd question whether she should have an article in her own right. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably depends on whether or not she wants to become the new Joan Bakewell. But it is the media kerfuffle about her that's the most interesting thing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I guess it's possible she could have a media career ahead of her, after all Amanda Holden was originally a contestant on Blind Date, so who knows? Interestingly, I can't believe there's actually several of these articles floating around. Most of these people are notable for one event. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, several of what articles? Btw, this article had over 3,000 views yesterday - [1]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, see this link. I'm not surprised the article had several thousand hits since her team's victory on University Challenge received a lot of media coverage yesterday. TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a media frenzy for about a week after the University Challenge final every time a team with a female captain wins. It happened with Sarah Fitzpatrick, it happened with Daisy Christodoulou. It'll all be over within a fortnight. Again. But before this article gets deleted, I have a question: how are her "personal" points totals calculated? Since they exceed 10 times the number of starters she's credited with, they must include points from the bonuses, on which the teams confer. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's taken direct from the referenced source - verifiability, not truth! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to wait six months before nominating for deletion. Unless she becomes a serious classicist, I can't see her notability really extending beyond this show. I still can't believe that people feel that media babble means notability Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me. I actually think it should be redirected to University Challenge though (as was originally the case when I created this on Monday). Still, perhaps as suggested above she might become the next Joan Bakewell. :) TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that this would nicely fall into Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Articles about people notable only for one event, and therefore we should Cover the event, not the person. Ronhjones (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My view is that the notable event is the media coverage about Gail Trimble, specifically, rather than the University Challenge programme itself, which without her would have excited very much less media interest. Obviously the notability of this article can be re-assessed down the line (if anyone remembers to do so!), but, who knows, she may still be in the public eye then. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a pretty blatant case of WP:BLP1E, but there's no rush to delete it right now - as the comments above say, let's wait a few months and then re-assess her notability once she's no longer in the public eye. Robofish (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron workspace

The Article Rescue Squadron will be attempting to improve this article to an acceptable standard during the course of the deletion discussion. Please use this space to list sources which have not been included in the article, or which have been under-used. More to follow, please pitch in. Skomorokh 20:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

International coverage

Gulf Daily News, Irish Independent, Epoch Times, Reuters China, Swissinfo, Reuters India, El Diario Vasco. This contradicts the claim of negligible notability.

Unused reliable sources

"University Challenge: envy and misogny" (New Statesman)

"No conferring needed as brainbox Gail says yes to marriage proposal" by Anna Mikhailova and Maurice Chittenden (Sunday Times)

"A brief history of brainy women" by Khaled Diab (The Guardian), describing her as "a media sensation"

"Gail Trimble quizzed ... out" by Pat Ashworth (Church Times)

"University Challenge: It's about time we celebrated cleverness" by David Nicholls (Daily Telegraph)

"We should be proud of University Challenge star Gail Trimble" by Stuart Maconie (Daily Mirror)

"Gail raises a storm for being clever" by Roxanne Sorooshian (Sunday Herald)

"Earning respect has got nothing to do with whether or not you're educated" by Howard Jacobson (The Independent)

Under-used reliable sources

Merge or re-name

Please don't tell people what not to do. "Voting" is just one way of expressing an opinion. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Many people in the deletion stated a preference for merging the content into University Challenge or renaming this article after the event. The other option would be starting a new article about University Challenge contestants.

Let's hear some ideas about the content that should be merged into another article. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merger, oppose move. Yes she is notable because of her appearance in UC, but in view of the coverage specifically about her in reliable sources, she should have her own article. – ukexpat (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merger, oppose move. Agree with Ukexpat. Please let's not reopen this yet. In due course, when it becomes more clear whether or not her notability survives, there may be a case for reconsidering whether to merge this article into University Challenge 2009. But the idea of a new article on "UC contestants" is a non-starter - it would become open house for everyone who has ever been on the show to claim a mention, and it would detract from the particular unique fact of Gail Trimble's celebrity, which is based both on her own success on the show and (more importantly in my view) the scale and nature of the reaction to that across the media, as demonstrated by the copious references in the article and elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well...the person closing the discussion specifically suggested that merge or rename was an option based on the discussion. Unfortunately, the lack of interest in her later that would suggest deletion is needed also means that the article will be ignored and grow stale. That is the reason that content is better place in an article about the event and then later an article can be started if she is known for more than the event. Doing it as you suggest too often causes us to end up with low quality content which is unacceptable for BLP content because living people should have good articles or none at all. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

FloNight, you say later down this thread that "I am prepared to hang on a few months to see whether her "celeb" status stands the test of time or not." That is also my position. In my view, if she is not notable in a few months time, there will be a case for reviewing whether her entry should be merged into University Challenge 2009. But now is not the time to be having that debate. She is notable now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• merge per FloNight. current content about this person is not encyclopedic to have a stand alone article. if further content and actions in the future provide content beyond this one event, THEN a seperate article can be spun off. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Afd decision was Keep - let's not reopen that now. What on earth would we rename to? Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• comment did you miss this "There are a good number of people calling for a redirect or a merge as well; this does not need to be decided at AfD, but can be discussed on the article's talk page." (emph added) portion of the closing admins rationale? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Merge per FloNight. I'm in favour of merging the relevant info into University Challenge 2009 or University Challenge (whichever is most appropriate). As has been said many times before, this is a classic case of WP:BLP1E. However, I am prepared to hang on a few months to see whether her "celeb" status stands the test of time or not. TheRetroGuy (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per FloNight and others. There's no substantial biographical information available to construct a biography on her, and she's only notable for this one thing, thus the information should be merged into the relevant article. Adam Zel (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per the arguments in the recent AFD. Artw (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Care to state a few? --DFS454 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose There's sources which cover her outside the context of a specific event; WP:1E and WP:NOT#NEWS are irrelevant. She is discussed in multiple, reliable sources and therefore passes WP:N. bridies (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• ALL SOURCES relate to University Challenge in one way or another so the above are relavent. Look at the dates for the references they are either Feb or March 2009. The references include appearing in the final, winning the final, being judged by the media for winning the final and finally being disqualified. This all falls into the one event. I'm sure it'd be possible to find 20 news stories relating to the disqualification but this doesn't increase her notability. --DFS454 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Relate to" is not the same as "in the context of" IMO. The articles discussing her in relation to Jade Goody and such are not somehow under the wider context of university challenge. bridies (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Merge She is not notable outside this one event.--DFS454 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep separate There are multiple source about her, that do not just mention her while writing about the show. Of course everything about her will be related to University Challenge, that does not make it a BLP1E. Daniel Radcliffe is only really known for playing Harry Potter, but should obviously have his own article. Same with Gavrilo Princip, who would certainly have an article even if he was alive. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well, off the top of my head so to speak, I can think of at least two other notable roles involving Daniel Radcliffe which have received media coverage. There's his role in Equus and his portrayal of Kipling's son in My Boy Jack. Can't think of anything involving Gail Trimble outside University Challenge though. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Would we not have an article on Daniel Radcliffe if it were not for those two roles? --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think you are using rhetoric here. They are not the same thing. Being in a film is not the same as an event. It has it's own criteria for inclusion i.e. WP:NOTFILM --DFS454 (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So is this guy not notable? bridies (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we take you with any seriousness at all when you are comparing a mass murder's impact with that of a game show? -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a reductio ad absurdum argument countering the idea that notable for one even means delete. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Assume whatever you want. We're taking about the murderer here though. If we follow the logic put forth by the 1E proponents then this guy is only noted for one event and should therefore redirect to Virginia Tech Massacre. He caused a media storm which published enough information about him to merit and to write an article. Like it or not, the U.K. media has done this same thing with Trimble and tried to place her in some sort of symbolic cultural terms. She was also able to give media interviews afterwards and has been linked with magazine photoshoots, car adverts, blah blah. The same cannot be said for Mr mass murderer. Anyway, I think it equally perverse you somehow find killing people more worthy of attention than being a pop-intellectual icon. bridies (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly this guy is notable as he is still being mentioned by newspaper articles published consistantly from the time of the incident to as recently as yesterday, the incident impacted the way that many institutions review security, impacted the way people view mental illness etc. etc. etc. reductio ad absurdum my ass.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I might also add that it still doesn't change the fact he is noted for one event. Any current media coverage he gets is surely "in the context" of the massacre, as you would have it, and therefore not worthy of note separate from that. Trimble's fame dwarfs that of the event (I never saw the final and many here have said they've never heard of the show); I very much doubt that is the case with Cho. bridies (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a crystal ball and notability is not temporary. bridies (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I couldnt agree with you more. Notability is not temporary and there is no indication that this individual's "notability" is going to last more than 1 news cycle. In six months if there is still impact of Ms. Trimble, THEN a stand alone article is created.-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

She is notable as of right now. Multiple reliable sources cover her, some of them outside the context of the event she is supposedly only famous for. bridies (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So you explicitly admit she is notable? Notability is not temporary. bridies (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My above statement has been clarified. I do not believe that she is notable (as per wikipedia's definition) at this time.-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, what about this guy? Said one thing, once. Got lots of publicity. Still a big article. (Btw, his article has had 6279 hits this month, Trimble's had 9662). Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The other guy's article is a mess too, but edit wars have prevented much improvement. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OTHERCRAP pertain only to AFD. As you are so keen to point out, this isn't an AfD. bridies (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)It is unfair to compare Seung-Hui Cho to Gail Trimble. 10 years from now there will be anniversaries for what happened at Virginia Tech. --DFS454 (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh man. Will there be anniversaries for Cho also? bridies (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Looks like an AFD sequel to me. The article is well-sourced and so is best kept as is. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, and making your own vote doesn't perpetuate that at all... :|
  • Comment: As it is, the lead section of this article is entirely, with the exception of the first sentence, about her appearance on this show and the media attention she's received because of it. (See WP:BLP1E). In the body, there is one paragraph devoted to her "background", as it is titled. The majority of which regards her education. Following that, the remainder of the article, which is about five times or so the length of the background section (See WP:UNDUE), is devoted entirely to her appearance on the show and the subsequent media attention. This is not a "biography" at all, and all relevant information should be merged into the game show's article. Well-sourced means nothing. It fails BLP. Adam Zel (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Already almost all the prose in University Challenge 2009 is about the final and merging this article would make it even more ludicrously lopsided. This is just more sour-grapes that Trimble's fame eclipses that of the match she won. WP:UNDUE just isn't applicable; on the contrary we are giving due weight to the balance of third party coverage. bridies (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be lopsided, as the final had more media coverage (which is usual for competitive events). There is enough coverage for an article about Trimble, but it could be merged (and maybe should be, per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRYSTAL, as it is impossible to know whether the coverage will continue beyond this). —Snigbrook 17:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What? UNDUE is applicable, as read in the final paragraph of the section:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. [...] An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Almost the entire article is about this one event (BLP1E). Thus, the relevant information should be merged into the article on the season. Likewise, UNDUE applies there, allowing the finals section to be greater in detail, as more attention was given to it. ₳dam Zel 16:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, giving more space to the appropriate media coverage is "treat[ing] each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". bridies (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

When considering the life of the subject, you think that this one even carries such a significance that it warrants 90% of the article? ₳dam Zel 16:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What is does "this one" mean? The article is split between the university challenge competition and media musings of her place in Britain's cult-of-celebrity culture, with a brief biography, reflecting the balance of third party coverage. I hardly think anything is taking up "90%" of the article. bridies (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to merge some of this into University Challenge/University Challenge 2009. I think it is obvious to anybody that she has received some press coverage, making her notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. However, that does not imply that she is notable enough for her own, stand-alone article. The problem arises that this article (at this point in time) will never be fully rounded enough and expanded upon to really be considered a good article (not a GA, by the way... more in the general sense of the word). While there is outside coverage that we can use for inclusion, there isn't enough to base her own article on. There are other concerns, as well. We shouldn't allow this article to become a coatrack for any miniscule coverage of her (recently there was text about her being offered a men's magazine photoshoot). Biographies of living people need to be handled very carefully. It would be very easy for this article to do harm, and we should be aiming to do no harm. We don't need to have an article on her specifically at this point. Keeping it around for awhile to see what her press coverage is in a few months is not the right way to go about writing an encyclopedia. For these reasons, I'd say merge the article and redirect. And if she gains some major notability (writes a bestseller about her performance, etc.) then split out her material into a biography article. It's not like if we merge this article, all of the information will suddenly disappear from the face of the earth. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Don't merge topic clearly meets WP:N (no arguments I can see) and at some point a truly significant "single event" that lasts onwards from there is not a single event. The continued press coverage past the single event makes her a person of on-going interest. So not a single-event issue. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. Doing well in a quiz show is generally not something which yields long-lasting notability. Occasionally, there is a deluge of media coverage over a small issue, disproportionate to the notability and significance. Unless Ms. Trimble becomes a fixture in the media, I think that may be one of those cases. If her performance is a well-known event in the context of the quiz show, a merge seems appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Those are opinions that run contracy to WP:GNG policy. Long lasting notability has never been a requirement. Becoming a "fixture in the media"? What does that mean like Barack Obama? Becoming a fixture is not a requirement either. She meets all 4 guidelines Valoem ^talk 17:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that a strict interpretation of the GNG guideline (not policy) leads to some bad consequences. I have said it before and I'll say it again: GNG is too strict with villages in Africa, while it's too lenient with news stories. When I am looking for "lasting notability" or "fixture", I am looking for something which makes the article more than a news story. Note that my opinions are not always 100% rooted in policy or guidelines, but there is a bit of subjective "common sense" in the mix (and what "common sense" is varies from person to person). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose of Merge, Remember when Jimmy Wales said, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

That has nothing to do with the debate just something to keep in mind. Oppose Merge for following reasons. Argument for the merge have been very weak, run along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please keep in mind WP:N:

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1]
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2]
• "Sources,"[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4]
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[5]

She meets all of the criteria. She has article regarding her describing her history. She continued to receive coverage after this event including sponsorships which is a huge keep. She is equally notability as Jerry Yang (poker player), Robert Varkonyi, and many athletes. Precedence is already for the keep of this article. Article is well written, well cited, and desearves its only place on wikipedia as her accomplishments have been covered beyond the show. Valoem ^talk 17:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• comment sum of all human "knowledge", not trivia. What she doesn't meet is WP:BLP1E. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i said that has nothing to do with the debate just something to think about. Passes WP:BLP1E. I guess according to you Jerry Yang should be deleted too right? Valoem ^talk 18:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• She clearly passes WP:BLP1E -

1. She is not a "low-profile individual"
2. She is covered in multiple contexts
3. Her biography is not marginal
4. She has independent notability

Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with 3/4 of your analysis. She is not covered in multiple contexts - the only context is the quiz show hoopla; her "biography" is marginal (she sings in a choir, had decent grades, practices a religion and was dating someone -pfff thats NOT biography); she does not have notability idependant of the quiz show. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to completely site all the independent notable sources including BBC, The Independent (no pun intended), and Daily Mail, but then I realized something. Why must inclusionist do all the work? Please going down the list of cited sources and explain each as to why they are not notable after all yous view is the minority right now. If you can successfully defend your position i will change my vote. Valoem ^talk 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Her bio here is just fine and looks good compared to most. For example, I just clicked random article a few times until I came to something comparable which was Kevin O'Connor. This article is excellent compared to most of those - get back to us after you've brought them up to the same level. Moreover, she is covered in multiple contexts which include:

1. University Challenge - the current season and subsequent furore about the result.
2. Sexual politics for which she is now an exemplar mentioned in the same breath as Margaret Thatcher and Hilary Clinton.
3. Class conflict - a similar but different topic which is big in Britain
4. Personal life such as her engagement, which was covered separately.

These contexts well establish her independent notability. She has been noticed by numerous reliable sources which includes all the quality press who continue to write about her. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Merge because the attack on the individual will continue to growth . There is nothing encyclopedic about bashing a person. --J.Mundo (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • How is that an attack that looks like a harmless pop culture joke.
• oppose merge, oppose rename There's no good reason to merge. There's no BLP1E issue since the coverage is very much ongoing. Moreover, the individual is very much in the public eye and willingly so. Thus, if the logic of BLP1E is to avoid harm to people then that's no an issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely oppose any merger or rename. She has the necessary multiple coverage in non-trivial relaible sources to pass WP:BIO easily. To do anything other than keep will not recognise her contribution to the UK in 2009. - fchd (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Coverage on BBC Radio 4

A good deal of coverage has been given to Trimble on BBC Radio 4, including an interview on The Today programme and mention on "A Point of View". She has even been mentioned on The Now Show on March 6, 2009. Perhaps this widespread mention on the radio would strengthen the case of those who wish to retain this article? At present, she may be known for one thing, but what about the Wikipedia entries on, for example, Henry Allingham or Harry Patch - surely they would not have received so much publicity if it had not been for the fact that they have attained exceptional longevity? Just a thought. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Complicity in cheating

Surely the main underlying controversy should not be whether she is really unusually 'clever' as opposed to having remembered a lot of facts to be repeated at speed. It's not whether the world has it in for her because she's a woman, a claim that conveys something of a 'chip on the shoulder', but doesn't recognise that there might be other reasons why she has attracted some antagonism.

No, the important issue, surely, is whether a team of people of which she had the responsible role of being captain should be allowed to sit quietly while one of their number, apparently, lied about being a student - 'studying chemistry' - when he was in fact an employee of a London city company. Going back a generation this would have been publicly declaimed as dishonorable. Now, it seems, the silence on this key aspect indicates that cheating is alright if you can get away with it. Gail should have done the honest and decent thing and refused to sit quietly by while the false claim was being made. She, presumably, would have had ample opportunity to follow the honorable course before the embarrassment of public exposure settled the matter for her and the team. As it is she ends up being the captain of a team disqualified for dishonesty - not what she wanted, I'm sure. The lure of fame is a two-edged sword.

Regarding comparisons with Jade Goody, the latter might not have been known as the brightest star in the sky, but one wonders whether she might have been more straightforward than the 'cleverer' captain of a 'cleverer' team. It is disappointing that newspapers from The Daily Telegraph down to the The Daily Mail focus on dumbing down, by which they mean Ms. Goody, rather then deception, in which Gail and the team were the guilty party.

The article should be balanced by reference to cheating and dishonesty, rather than just so-called 'genius', which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, what the University Challenge format measures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.192.139 (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The information available suggests that the rules were unclear, rather than anyone "cheated" - and certainly no-one has suggested that Trimble did. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue of the ethics of allowing Sam Kay, who turned out to have stopped being a student at the time of the later rounds, is one which rather goes beyond the scope of this article. Obviously, people may have different views on a matter such as this - but please remember that the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages is to discuss the article as it is written, not the subject-matter of the article in general. To be fair to the Corpus Christi side, I should say that Sam Kay, presumably, did not know he would not get funding when the contest began, and expected to be a Ph.D. student at the times of the later rounds. However, this is a topic relating to the Corpus Christi team in general and to University Challenge in general, not one which relates specifically to Gail Trimble. Please, let us keep these talk pages focussed on topics such as the presentation, comprehensiveness, scope, accuracy and structure of an article such as this one. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The article should be balanced by reference to cheating and dishonesty, rather than just so-called 'genius'. As team captain she is responsible for the team's behaviour.

Regarding rules, most contestants seem to have little trouble understanding and signing up to the requirement of being a student of their university during the whole recording period, the dates of which are stated. It is not credible that an apparently elite group of students from an elite university do not understand the rules.

A contestant of Gail's team stated during the programme that he was studying chemistry at the university whereas he had left it months before and was, in fact, employed as an accountant. Ms. Trimble and the other team members were complicit in this deception. Surely this complicity by Gail is more important, being a fact, than the speculative journalistic claims of her 'genius'.

It is not a matter of 'ethics', but one of abiding by the rules or else being disqualified, as happens in most competitive sports and games.

Ms. Trimble was not only complicit herself, but carries additional responsibility, as captain, for the team's complicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.11.222 (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, do you have any reliable sources that accuse the subject of this article of "cheating"? If not, it is a moot point and this page is not a place for you to be soapboxing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this will do for a reliable source - the joint statement by the BBC and Granada television, i.e. the organisers and rule-setters of the quiz, stating that the team, led by Gail Trimble, was disqualified and the trophy was awarded to the runners-up, the University of Manchester.

"The University Challenge rules on student eligibility are that students taking part must be registered at their university or college for the duration of the recording of the series. Whilst obviously not intending to, Corpus Christi broke this important rule where other universities and colleges taking part adhered to it. We therefore find ourselves in the regrettable position of having no choice but to disqualify Corpus Christi from the final."

The speculative "obviously not intending to" part seems a little mealy-mouthed and weak of the BBC. Most people probably think that they fully intended to pretend that he was still a student in order to win. When, for example, an athlete is disqualified from a sports event for failing a drugs test the officials do not usually find it necessary to add platitudes to the effect that the competitor had 'obviously not intended to' take drugs, nor to suggest that the competitor was too stupid to understand the rules. That university students of one of the oldest and most respected universities in the world are not able to understand what is meant by being 'registered at their university or college for the duration of the recording of the series' is beyond credibility.

We report what reliable sources actually say and do not "un-mealy mouth" their comments to fit our personal POV. And the clip does not make any mention of the topic of this article about a living person. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The article (i.e. the Wikipedia article under discussion) makes a feature of, opens with, her position as captain of the now infamous Corpus Christi team. The 'clip' responds to your request for 'reliable sources that accuse the subject of this article of "cheating"'. I leave it to you to make the connection, though you seem to be having as much trouble doing so as Gail's team had connecting the rules with the untrue statement made during their introduction on the show. What /is/ clear is that you are the one who is 'soapboxing', as you call it, preferring to remove any 'negative' facts, whilst leaving speculative claims of 'genius' - an approach better suited to the tabloid press than to an encyclopedia. Perhaps your contribution to this discussion might sit better on a fan web site? Or else you might considering taking your own advice and providing facts rather than unsubstantiated, unwarranted (who /asked/ you (the royal 'we') to "un-mealy mouth" comments - no one on this discussion) journalistic hype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.247.142 (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Leaving it to me to make the connection is a violation of our "No original research plicy. If you wish to include accusations of "cheating" into this article about Gail Trimble, you will need to find a reliable source that accuses her of cheating. Period. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that 'Red Pen of Doom' had probably misunderstand that by 'making the connection' it was probably meant that the modicum of intelligence required to understand that the breaking of rules is cheating, by definition, should be applied as a matter of course. It's highly unlikely that Wikipedia has a policy that editors should not apply such basic skills as knowing or looking up the definition of words before jumping to spurious conclusions. A blanket recourse to 'Original research' is not applicable or relevant. It is interesting that quick Google / Wikipedia searches on 'Red Pen of Doom' seem to indicate that the so-called 'Red Pen of Doom' appears to have had a somewhat chequered and controversial history on Wikipedia. Perhaps, given this, the apparent reluctance or inability to understand the meaning of common words isn't surprising.

The point about 'cheating' is well made. The section heading has been amended to be a more accurate description in the context of this article, which is about Ms. Trimble herself, rather than the team as a whole.

If you want to contribute to wikipedia, you should check out its rules sometime. Such as this one WP:OR and this one WP:V and this one WP:NPOV. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A fit of pique by 'Red Pen'? More fundamental than Wikipedia rules, which seem, here, to have been referenced arbitrarily and irrelevantly, is a knowledge and understanding of language, specifically of words and their meanings. Use of a dictionary is permitted. Go for it, 'Red Pen'. If you don't, contributions such as yours, above, will degrade the quality of Wikipedia, as your track record appears to show you to have done in the past - flying in the face of editors who have tried to restrain or correct your interventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.208.131 (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia has its rules and guidelines. If you dont think they are good guidelines, you can go to the talk pages and suggest changes. If you are unable to convince others to change them and are unable to contribute within the guidelines, then perhaps you should seek other forums to contribute to. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about definitions and conclusions, a "modicum of intelligence" tells us that 81.151.208.131's decision to hide behind an anonymous IP address while attacking registered contributors is cowardly, sneaky and maybe worse. - Pointillist (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to use the word 'hide' to refer to perfectly normal use of Wikipedia, by design, since its inception. 86.153.162.0 (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia does indeed have a policy that—when writing about living people—editors must not say anything that isn't directly supported by reliable sources. Many reputable newspapers, magazines, radio and TV programmes have carried the story about the CCC team's disqualification. If they don't directly accuse someone of cheating, you're not allowed to make that connection here. It's nothing to do with TheRedPenOfDoom's editing history. - Pointillist (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To respond to IP's first three posts: You argue that it is not credible that breaking the rules was an honest mistake, quoting the BBC's statement: "students taking part must be registered at their university or college for the duration of the recording of the series". That clause is indeed clear. But that was the BBC's paraphrase of the rules, not a direct quotation. It is perfectly possible that the actual rules were less clear and unequivocal (and I know for a fact that the rules sent out to this years teams have been rewritten to remove any ambiguity).

Furthermore, you claim that "most contestants seem to have little trouble understanding [those requirements]". I take it you have not personally checked to see if this is the case. Indeed, three of the winning teams from the past ten years have since stated that they violated the letter of the law (and in one case Granada was happy with this) - if this is the case then violations can easily slip through the net, so we have no idea of the number of teams breaking the rules.

Even if it was extremely unlikely that it was an honest mistake, Wikipedia would not be in a position to state that as a fact. Indeed, stating as fact that it was a deliberate ploy could constitute libel.

As for the fact that Sam Kay stated on air that he was studying Chemistry, and that the rest of the team did not point out that this was false, I think we can allow some dramatic licence. It would be an unwelcome interruption if he had said 'I studied Chemistry - but don't worry, viewers, I'm still eligible because...' etc. The important thing is that he was honest with the Granada production team, and he did indeed indicate his term dates on his application paper. (The fact that Granada did not do anything, despite this information being available, is perhaps an indication of apathy on their part - as I mentioned, they previously OK'd a student in a similar situation).

Having looked at the question of intent, let me talk about the other main point you make, which is that more coverage should be given to the cheating (used here in the sense of an advantageous breaking of the rules whether deliberate or otherwise), and less to her "so-called genius". (Incidentally, while most of the sources quoted are indeed favourable, the main text of the article does not use this word at all.) The reason WP's coverage has focused on the positive is because the press has done so. We are not here to moralize, but rather to record the events that made her notable. The events in question were the highly polarized reactions to her performance in the 'blogosphere', and then the mostly favourable reactions in the national press. It may well be "disappointing that newspapers from The Daily Telegraph down to the The Daily Mail focus on [the issue of alleged nationwide]dumbing down rather then deception, in which Gail and the team were the guilty party"; but we cannot unwrite what has been written, and it is not our job to make up for the 'wrongs' of the national press.

That said, if you do have sources which criticise Gail over the cheating, add them to the article; it is just your own running commentary which is not considered encyclopedic content. Hadrian89 (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Are you suggesting that discussion on a talk page constitutes 'encyclopedic content'? Isn't the actual article where encyclopedic content resides?

References

Undue weight

I tagged this article with {{undue}}. This article is exclusively about her quiz show performance. As a senior faculty member of such a notable university, there is certainly a lot more to say about her academic activities. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that a "Senior Faculty Member" (whatever that means, it is not a term that I am familiar with, even though I am an Oxford grad) does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:PROF, so really she is only notable for University Challenge.--ukexpat (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is strictly {{undue}}, but rather that the article has now become outdated. Updating would of course be welcome. Even if her academic career doesn't yet meet WP:PROF (and she would be quite young to have done so), that's no bar to adding coverage of it, thus far. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree - this article is definitely ripe for deletion. It's news, not knowledge, and a one-para addition of content in some article on U.C. might be merited. It's a wonderful case study re gender, class and media - but she is not a notable person either academically or in media terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.93.22 (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. If every academic had a Wikipedia page about them it would be even more ridiculous. 86.153.162.0 (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This article survived a second nomination for deletion

Shouldn't it be pointed out that this article was again nominated for deletion on August 3 2012, and the result of the discussion again was to keep it? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Citations needed template

Hi @Overvolt, I see you've added a citations needed template to the article. It looks to me like every sentence requiring a citation has a source. I may be missing something; can you please explain why you've added the template? Thanks, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Chocmilk03, sorry for the vague template. A family member of Gail pointed out issues with the content of this article, a specific one being the erroneous middle name "Christina", which none of the references seem to mention. As all of the other information has citations, I've removed the citation template, and instead removed just the disputed middle name. Overvolt (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Sweet! Good idea; if someone has a source for that middle name it can be added back but consistent with WP:BLP policies to remove it in the meantime. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)