Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Green

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Green[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article about a radio presenter. Out of date (the subject no longer presents regular weekday programs). Article is written in a promotional tone ("the day's biggest news stories") and there is nothing here worth keeping. Subject has interviewed notable people, but this does not make the subject in and of herself notable. Article has needed additional citations since 2011. Flip Format (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unusually I'm going to argue that we should ignore the GNG and delete on the basis of WP:AVOIDVICTIM. I think the subject's radio work is likely notable but on the basis of the other stuff (which I'm not even going to link to here) the kindest thing to do is probably to avoid giving further unwanted attention. JMWt (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Much of the reasons to delete above are fixable and I've partly fixed them already. More citations are needed, the PROMO tone has been removed, she seems to have won two minor awards, made news for her reporting on her town of birth and for her calls for an inquiry into BBC workplace harassment. I think she scrapes through WP:BASIC CT55555(talk) 19:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BASIC per CT's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm struggling to understand the delete justification. What is the 'other stuff'? What are we trying to avoid giving attention to? This may need some clarification? --Mtaylor848 (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following CT55555's efforts, this article meets WP:BASIC per CT's argument and has been updated along with the addition of with many independent references. Rillington (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep references seems fine Christopheronthemove (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BASIC now Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Flip Format please consider withdrawing this request, it seems very unlikely it will be deleted, noting WP:SNOW. CT55555(talk) 19:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BASIC/WP:GNG does not appear supported by the mix of primary sources, a college newspaper, and brief coverage primarily focused on one event for which WP:AVOIDVICTIM appears to apply [1]. This is a biography of a living person, and it does not appear we can get this article right at this time, so deletion seems appropriate for several reasons. Beccaynr (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2023 (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.