The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge with Topfreedom. The current article in its entirety is now in the Topfreedom article. Redirect kept as this is a likely search term. --Polaron | Talk 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Jacob[edit]

She got her tits out! And gets a mountain of googles because, guess what?, tits get that on the internet. There's simply no-way this one incident can merit a biography (where's the sources). I'd call this a COATRACK for the nudity lobby, but as someone already remarked, there's less of the coat and more of the rack. -Doc^g 21:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doc. Might merit a very short sentence in topfreedom but that really is about it. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or migrate into an article about the court decision. John Vandenberg 21:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this was an important case. Insipred protests across Canada and activists in the US. After her conviction was overturned, other women took advantage of the, er, legal climate. There are a couple dozen Google Books results discussing the case seriously or highlighting it as an important point. The people celebrating this -- nudists -- are in fact people who insist that it is not the titillation factor but an issue of gender equality under the law. --Dhartung | Talk 02:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then have an article on the case, or on the issue (not that we lack them) but I see NO sources for a biography of the individual.--Doc^g 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Generally, people who are known only due to a news item would get merged into a news item. However, this individual triggered a landmark legal ruling which steps it above the usual person in a news story situation. The amount of news coverage is tremendous. For eXample, this New York Times article. -- Whpq 15:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The level of news coverage isn't the issue. There's enough news coverage to mean that we can cover the issue. The question is do we have enough notable biographical information on the subject to merit a biography? Can a biography be written about this subject that isn't really just the news-story or the courtcase posing as a biography. I say no, but if you can provide sources that include notable information apart from the newsstory, I'm happy to change my mind.--Doc^g 15:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would not be opposed to reforming the material in the article to be about the court case if there is insufficient reliable sources to establish a bio. -- Whpq 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Have to agree with Doc. Jacob was a one-hit wonder. She got her 5 minutes of fame. So what if women can bare their breasts in public. Since that time I haven't seen any new trends in public nudity. This is another case of "Interesting, yes, but who cares?" Bombycil 16:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.