Talk:Monica Coghlan

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Someone's notability is independent of whatever happens inside wikipedia.Cardigan3000 23:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Article expansion 

message: An anonymous edit in early January added a sentence to the Jeffery Archer section: The amount allegedly given by Archer to Coghlan, £2000, is now known in English slang as "an Archer". Later, a link to the Urban Dictionary to cite it was added and quickly (and appropriately) removed. I'm not English, so I don't know for sure, but is this true, or was it just a quickie attempt to bash Archer? It's not a phrase I've ever encountered, and it seems unlikely that the £2000 figure is commonly cited with a nickname of that nature. Can we get an RS cite on this? Horologium talk - contrib 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "an Archer"?

message: I had never heard of her, and as I read the article, the last sentence stood out.
'Following her death and Archer's conviction for perjury, on 20 July 2001 the English Collective of Prostitutes wrote an open letter to The Guardian newspaper supporting her vindication, and calling her unjustly "branded by her sex, race and class and by the prostitution laws which label and condemn women."'
It made me wonder what her race was -- information that doesn't seem to appear in the article. Now, I don't feel that that there'd be any particular need to mention her race, if it weren't for that sentence I quoted. But, my reaction to it was: 'Huh? What did I miss?  What was her race? Coghlan? Is that an Irish name? I'd better go back and read the article again. What's happened to my reading comprehension?' I don't think that's a good way for an encyclopedia article to be written. Would it be better to simply leave out the reference to her race, since there's nothing in the article that sounds as though it's relevant? Marieblasdell 07:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The letter claims she was "of mixed race", but the articles don't seem to mention it being a factor, and we can hardly state "a letter to the editor claims she was of mixed race". I don't feel right editing the quote, or leaving it out altogether, as she did become a bit of a symbol - prostitute wronged by peer and all. Any specific suggestions on rewriting? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her race? 

message: "One of Coghlan's clients....was Jeffrey Archer". Is that really an undisputed fact since JAs perjury case? I mean, has JA admitted it, or has a judge pronounced that to be true? Not that I want to defend JA at all, but I/m just curious. 80.2.204.109 (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as far as I am aware. I'm pretty sure he has never admitted it. What happened was that Kurtha (who occassionally presented a TV show about politics from the British-Asian perspective) saw a client with Coghlan and identified him as Archer (Coghlan herself did not recognise him). He also recorded the number plate of the car he had arrived in  - which turned out to be Archer's. Archer claimed that he merely paid her to avoid scandal. Of course one may well wonder why anyone would do that - and pressure witnesses to lie in court - if there was no truth in the story. Paul B (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really a fact, or an inferance?