Talk:Louise Glover

Louise Glover Artical to be completly removed

Louise Glover Artical to be completly removed and never to have louise glover the model on here again. The whole artical need to be deleted, not re wored por re written the whole page is false info even the bbc has taken info from the daily sport and wrote wrong wording on her. this is braking louise in half. Can we please find a way to get this page deleted and never to waste so much time on her also.

The whole thing is written so negative with ridicules sources of information, who cares if you have links. why so many why repeat the same info more than 4 times...

You haven't even got her achievements on that page...

Does louise need to come on here to get this page deleted.

Can this be a legal matter to keep louise glover the glamour model completely off this site forever.

For example: Shes never had money from her family, she never lived in foster care, you added about a court case that article that court case was 2 years early then when they even wrote on it was just a hearing to change the order to London from st helens. And she has never been romantically involved with usher or rio ferdinand...

So it is liable, she is now a 34FF, not a 34c... she never been a 34c. she actually wasn't born in st helens. And you have missed out that shes now a professional published work photographer and all of herr 100 magazine covers and over 1000 magazine features. yyou missed all the tv shows shes been a big part of and you got a lot wrong that the ref's got wrong. she never been to israel, nor teached disadvantage children english. Everything on that page has so many problems with it I don't have the time any more to keep doing this. so the best solution is to delete her from here permanently.

You always throw the that shes been raped for all to see case on here which she dies when people say were they seen that. This place is the only place to see hat info on her as you keep saying anyone can write about her, which i think is very dangerous if you knew the half of whats shes been threw...

It's time to give louise glover a break, her break in her career that she needs. So please tell me how this can be complety deleted for good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidia smith (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Have you got any sources to back up the assertions that are made? If the references have it all wrong, as you claim, somewhere there must be sources you can point to with the accurate information. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Talk with louise glover herself, she is the living proof. She wants her name completely off this website for good, it's only harmed her career and her mental health. Plus it's ruining her life. This website has very poorly sourced and liable info its lost her loads of great modeling and TV jobs. I'm her manager and this is a fact, I get sent this link all the time saying that louise sounds like she's got too many dramas and quote what they don't like about her, they don't read the small print everything on here can be true or false, and thats what loses her the modeling work. I totally agree with the clients when they say that because I think that when I read the stories, but I totally disagree with the website because totally its inaccurate, the info is repeated and doesn't make sense every time I have been referred to this page.

It needs to defiantly asap be a deleted and ended debate for Louise's sake. Regards, Lidia. Thu 26th Feb 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidia smith (talk • contribs) 02:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As was pointed out to you on your talk page, if Glover has an issue with the article, WP:Autobiography#Problems in an article about you has instructions for how to deal with it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If she really has a problem with this stuff and what people are saying about her, then she should probably not act like such a stupid fool and commit all of these crimes! She seems to me to be a VERY dangerous person and the Judge at her February 15, 2010, sentencing hearing said that she has showed NO REMORSE for her criminal activities. I am willing to bet that she will soon be back before a court for violating her probation. Biggus Dickus OMG (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. We're here to improve the article and not comment on the subject, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bisexual / Lesbian?

It's not referenced in the article, but it would seem to be of note. I just ran across some excerpts from a NOTW article citing comments from Glover about her romantic relationship with fellow model Leanne Carr. [1][2] On a lesser note, there is also a claim elsewhere that she clearly appears in a same-sex adult photoshoot with other models. (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, Clublez isn't much of a source, I'd say, and please refrain from posting links to porn sites. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You can see I listed the other more reputable sources which that site quoted from above, and I did give warning about the latter (which you removed). --24.190.71.206 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Style edits

I made a number of edits- all had to do with style issues- several citations were out of numerical order, others appeared mid--sentence (I moved them to the end). A couple of tweakings here and there, tense, etc. Nothing major.MStoke (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Husband?

The nightclub incident apparently happened because Louise accused the DJ of looking at her husband. There is no mention of Louise being married in the article. 81.158.175.57 (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that provide info about the marriage? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

She does state that she is married here. Does that count? - thewolfchild 21:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Assault conviction

Errr ... I don't know from edit warring on it, but it's a solid fact reported by the BBC. [3] Any reason why it shouldn't be included?  Ravenswing  15:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I would agree it's notable but care should be taken to avoid undue weight. I would include it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that it should be included. Perhaps we can do without quotations from the judge's scolding -- generally scale it back a bit -- but I see no reason for total omission of this incident. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This single item is a part of her personal life and belongs just there - under 'Personal Life'. It does not need it's very own section. - thewolfchild 18:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. "personal life" is marriages, relationships and children. Criminal convictions are most definitely not "personal life".--ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No offence but, is that your opinion? Or are you quoting some wiki-policy? I'm sure you reverted in good faith but, I have reviewed some other celeb bios looking for this very issue and most of the ones I read had included any legal and/or criminal issues as part of 'Personal Life'. Some articles where the 'Personal Life' section was quite long and/or there were multiple legal issues, there would be a sub-section of 'Legal Issues' within the 'Personal Life' section. But even then that doesn't apply here as the 'Personal Life' section here is quite small and there is only one legal issue.

Further, having a section entitled "Assault Conviction" goes against WP:BIO section on Crime, as the more neutral subsection of "Legal Issues" is more appropriate (in general, but not here as noted above). Your edit also goes against WP:BLP section on Writing Style, specifically Tone, as having such a section is an overstatement and Balance, as section headings must be neutral. So, due to all this, I feel my edit should stand.

Cheers! - thewolfchild 19:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

i really don't care, have it your way.--ukexpat (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Um... ok. I hope you are not bitter about this (sometimes it's hard to judge emotion here). Anyways, this isn't about "having my way". I'm just trying to improve the article and have it conform to WP standards. No hard feelings. Have good day! - thewolfchild 01:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request(s) from 94.236.137.135, 19 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Louise Glover 94.236.137.135 (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Louise Glover

Which edits do you want to make to the article? If you are trying to get auctoconfirmed, you must create an account. – ukexpat (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.236.137.135, 19 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

User Fark Hi please unblock me 94.236.137.135 (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not an edit request, it's a unblock request, which needs you to use the {{unblock}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.236.132.42, 14 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Louise Glover

94.236.132.42 (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Louise Glover

What would you like changed? Dismas|^(talk) 11:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pls unblock me 94.236.132.42 (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Hi 94.236.132.42, from what I can see, you are not blocked, but rather this article is semi-protected due to high levels of vandalism. If there is a specific request for a change, then do explain it or use WP:RFPP to request the page be unprotected Worm^TT 12:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Good article?

After making a minor edit (see 'Assault Conviction' above), I was considering making further edits (ie: adding subsection "Legal Troubles" to the "Personal Life" section and then adding the incident where she got in trouble for welfare fraud.) But, looking at the history of this article, I see there are a few contentious issues regarding content (items that shouldn't be there but are and vice versa). Further to that, I have found that many of the links in the ref list are dead (including a cite to support info about her "troubled childhood in foster care", the inclusion of which another editor has challenged). This article needs quite a bit of work to improve it and in the meantime, should it really be considered a 'good article'? Does anyone here (ie: ukexpat) have any opinion on this? - thewolfchild 21:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Louise Glover

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2008. Among the sources used, there are multiple primary sources, including 2 profile pages, and many sources are dead. I know this is probably not a problem, but the reference formatting is not consistent. Aside from the essay template, the article may not be up to date with her bodybuilding career. Overall, it needs a lot of work to maintain its GA status. Spinixster (chat!) 07:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent discussions (October 2024)

After the article was discussed at AfD there were discussions in at least two other locations: User talk:Asilvering/Archive 11#Louise Glover Article - Concerns over Harm and Balancing. and User talk:PamD#Louise Glover. Any further discussion should take place on this talk page so that all editors can contribute. (A discussion was previously copied to this page wholesale with no context, which I reverted). PamD 12:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD Just for the sake of transparency, I'll ping Svenska356 and Asilvering. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD@I dream of horses@Asilvering Hello all, as you will know from the linked discussions, the main concerns currently revolve around balancing and harm to the subject. The other issue underpinning this is whether the subject is still high-profile or not. Per the BLP guidelines, only material directly relevant to the subject's notability should be included if they are low-profile, with special care taken towards material that could adversely harm their reputation. My personal stance is that the subject is indeed low-profile, and that therefore their criminal convictions should be, not necessarily removed, but at least quite heavily condensed. One short sentence addressing the convictions such as "Glover assaulted a DJ in 2009" along with a high-quality secondary source could be a solution to the balancing and harm concerns while better adhering to the BLP guidelines for low-profile individuals. Svenska356 (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Svenska356, please don't ping me into this any more, since I don't have any editorial interest in this. I closed the deletion discussion and referred the issue to WP:BLPN, but that's where I'd like my involvement to end. Good luck with the article. :) -- asilvering (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Svenska356 This is more or less my opinion. I am, perhaps, more willing to have something longer. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@I dream of horsesIn fact, I agree that it could be made a bit longer than one short sentence. But I think that certain parts such as the quote from the judge about the subject having no remorse should be removed. It seems like an overemphasis that could be quite damaging to their reputation. I also feel like the all the subject's convictions should be under one section, rather than having the benefit fraud under the career section. It would make sense to condense them into a few short, well-sourced sentences under the legal section. The assault convictions prior to 2009 could also be omitted from the article, but still mentioned in a secondary link given that the subject is relatively low-profile. Svenska356 (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Svenska356, @PamD: In fact, ti's probably best the legal section be done away with, and the information contained within integrated into the rest of the article. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@I dream of horses@PamD Thinking about it, I could see that working well. That way, less attention would be drawn directly towards the convictions whenever someone reads the article, and they would be better balanced against all the positive information about the subject. At the same time, they probably still need to be condensed quite a bit too. The information about the subject's conviction for benefit fraud takes up over one third of the 2002 to 2005 career section. It seems a bit excessive. I feel that the convictions prior to 2009 shouldn't take up more than a couple of lines, if they are still mentioned. And, then the 2009 conviction could have a sentence or two dedicated to it in the second career section, but without the direct quotes from the judge. Svenska356 (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamDWhat is your personal view on the suggested edits above? Do you think that removing the legal section and integrating a condensed version into the rest of the article is a viable solution to addressing harm and balancing concerns? Svenska356 (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not really "career" is it, more "personal life". I agree that the judge's quotes can be omitted, but I think the previous convictions are appropriate. How about condensing the "Personal life" section to something like:

By 2007, Glover lived in London. In 2009 she was sentenced to a 30-week suspended prison term for two years and community service after assaulting a woman in a Brighton nightclub, and it was mentioned in court that she had previous convictions for assaulting a police constable in 2001 and a caution for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2005.

In October 2024 Glover revealed in an interview with The Sun that one month prior, after the rent for her room in a shared property near Windsor rose from £550 to £750 a month, and amid a slowing business, she was forced to move into a £60 tent on a farm in rural Reading, England.

All with appropriate sources. That includes key points in a toned-down way without the eyecatching "legal issues" heading. And no dollars - the source gave "£60" (at least in the title as cited - can't see the doc), and this is England. PamD 11:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD@I dream of horses That looks a lot better than before. I would be happy for those edits to go ahead. It looks like a well-balanced way of addressing the events without putting too much emphasis on them. Svenska356 (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD As a follow up to this, I feel that the part addressing the subject's benefit fraud conviction should also be condensed and moved to the personal life section, as it isn't related to their career either. Svenska356 (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD@Svenska356 I'm okay with the current quote. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm talking about the couple of sentences on this talk page that PamD wrote about a couple replies above mine. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually the benefit fraud is related to her career, as she specifically said it was her modelling payments which were involved. For an uninvolved follower of her social media you are putting in a huge amount of work trying to minimise anything negative. But I suppose a fan is a fan. Perhaps just WP:DROPTHESTICK? PamD 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD For myself, I'm kind of biased towards condensing negative information for all living people when we can do so without violating NPOV, but right now I feel that bias is slight. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD Yes, I am just a follower on social media. I don't know the subject personally, but they mentioned to me in a direct message how about this Wikipedia article had impacted their career and life as a whole and contributed to them being homeless. Regardless, it's not my intention to make any further edits to the article myself due to a possible COI. I only intend to suggest edits. I just want the article to conform with BLP guidelines as best as possible; while making sure it is balanced so as not to cause too much harm to the subject. If you could condense the negative information a bit such as the judge's quotes, to the amount that you deem fair and proportionate based on the BLP guidelines, then I am happy to drop this discussion for good and leave it at that. Svenska356 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I've made the change I suggested above, with a couple of slight tweaks (clarified "suspended", etc), and used what seem to me to be the two most useful sources. I hope everyone is happy with that. The benefit section seems to be closely interwoven with her modelling and not undue weight - intentional or not, that was a hefty overpayment of benefit. PamD 16:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

PamD, Svenska356 Yeah, have to say, I don't think a couple of sentences, which then precede to Glover getting attacked, is undue weight and would lend to her being somehow being harmed further. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD@I dream of horses Yes, I agree about the benefit section upon further reflection. Thank you for making those edits. I think that the article is well balanced now while still conforming to NPOV guidelines. Svenska356 (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD@I dream of horses Hello, I am sorry to have to continue this discussion after I said I would be happy to end it. However, the subject has recently been in contact with me and has expressed their disapproval and concern with a few of the new edits made. Specifically, they are concerned with the wording of a "30-week prison term, suspended for 2 years" as they don't want people to think that they might have served time in prison. They would prefer something like "a 2-year suspended sentence". In addition, they said that they want all mention of their businesses 'walkiesbylouise' and bodybylouise' to be removed as they are concerned that having them named on the same article that lists their convictions could cause harm their career. As an add on to this, the subject mentioned that they just want to live a normal live and to not be in the public eye anymore. Given this, do you think you could make the changes above without violating NPOV guidelines? If we treat the subject as a low-profile individual, or at least someone who is trying to become low-profile, then doesn't only material directly relevant to their original reason for notability need to be included, anyway? Svenska356 (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted to our agreed text. Someone trying to become a low-profile private person does not give interviews to The Sun. I think we have gone far enough in minimising the mention of difficulties in her past, and the subject of an article does not have editorial control. PamD 09:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD Hi. Firstly, I am sorry for having previously made changes to the article beyond was agreed. It is not something that I will do again. I understand why the subject may not be seen as low-profile given the recent interviews and news articles about them. However, I just wanted to clarify one thing in particular. Hypothetically speaking, is there anything the subject could do to become low-profile enough for the convictions to be removed as per BLP guidelines?? For example, if the subject changed their name, stopped taking interviews and made their social media accounts private, would that make them low-profile and justify that the convictions were completely removed, so as to not cause undue harm?? Svenska356 (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2024

@Svensak356: I really can't answer that one. I've put a message at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Becoming low-profile, where BLP specialists can be found.

December 2024 discussions

New heading created for any responses to Svensak356's question of 4 December, above. PamD 11:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

While I have sympathy for the subject's plight I think a lot of the conflict here has to do with a slight misinterpretation on WP:BLPCRIME - the carve out for public people is only about inclusion of unproven allegations. For both notable private people (which she likely is) and for explicitly public people the BLPCRIME guidance is entirely the same and we should be showing the same level of care regardless. The convictions are clearly notable but there's no need to go into detail beyond "on date she was convicted of crime for doing act". Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the information about her history has now been reduced beyond what is reasonable, but I'm going to take this article off my watchlist as there are more interesting people and places to write about. I think the fact that she gave an interview to a tabloid in 2024 is worth noting, as it indicates that she is still a "celebrity" rather than a quiet dog-walker, but I don't want to waste any more time on her. PamD 09:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The continued assertions that Louise Glover should be considered a low profile person are false and misleading. She maintains a promotional website, LouiseGlover.com, which has glamour photos of her in swimsuits and lingerie, and where she describes herself as "Louise Glover - Professional Model, Fitness competitor and Nutritionist". She has an Instagram page where she describes herself as a "Professional Model 20yrs • Freelance TV Presenter • Wellness Fitness Coach", and has 111,000 followers. She has a Facebook page where she describes herself as a "Public figure" and a "Professional Model 20 years, Sports TV presenter, Travel Influencer, Fitness coach in Windsor" and has 1.3 million followers. Her Facebook page shows her modeling in London, Ascot, Dubai and Sri Lanka in 2024. There are 263 photos of her for sale on Getty Images. She was interviewed for nine minutes by GB News in October, 2024, which she promoted to her Facebook followers. She was interviewed at great length by the St Helen Star in October, 2024, which she promoted to her Facebook followers. So, the original question was how a subject could become low-profile? The answer is to close her website, close her Instagram account, stop giving interviews, stop describing herself as an influencer, stop engaging in reputation management, make her Facebook page private for only her closest family and real world friends, and wait multiple years. Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)