Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ainsley Earhardt

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 keep. Shimeru (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ainsley Earhardt[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, a newscaster relatively new to the field, with no significant awards, no national coverage, no significant coverage in secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To nominator: Your delete vote is inherent in your nomination, unless specifically stated otherwise by you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for weak notability. Article needs additional cleanup and sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. There are three sources cited by the article: 1 certainly does not appear reliable; 2, well, no, classmates.com is not a reliable source; and 3 is obviously not independent. It is of course difficult to conduct a good search for a reporter because it will throw up lots of stuff by the reporter. But still, I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources out there, just the very occasional piece in local press. It is important to uphold the standard of significant coverage in reliable sources, otherwise we have unverified material. All the more so for a BLP. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Move to neutral. Most of the articles on the talk page seem to be hidden behind a paywall so I'm not sure whether they'll get the subject across WP:GNG. But by the same token, I'm not confident enough to say the article should be deleted as there obviously is reliable material out there. The open question is whether it's signficant coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Struck my "weak" above and upped my support per a bit of research and the possibilitoes shared now at Talk:Ainsley Earhardt. Yes... the article is in need of work. And the unsuitable cites currently in the article can be replaced through regular editing with the numerous non-FOX sources available to WP:V and properly source this article, and to encourage futher searches, I believe it can be improved to better serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers - I'll revisit my delete; it'll just take some time. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2010 (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.