Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Wilde

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. Content problems should be addressed by improving the article. Sandstein 23:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Wilde

Hey guys...I have had people try to write crazy things, and if it is suitable...please help me to learn how to prevent this, or to remedy.....I or a staff member can always clean grammar and language..but whenever I or staff sees weird or false info, we have to respond...Thank you for your time, and I hope that I will not have to check this entry every day as I have in the past 2 weeks to counter the vandals...Thank you so much for helping me....Liz wilde/Annie

Fails WP:NOTE and WP:BIO - even after all the work the subject herself has done on the article, only a small number of references to secondary sources are provided and those are each very short, the latest 7 years old to when she went to work for NBG Radio Network which went bust 2 years later. Doug Weller (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be enough second party sources but alot of the article can and should go. Guidelines suggest to keep it to basics with lesser known people. --neon white talk 17:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. Dppowell (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note. A separate AfD, Liz Wilde (2nd nomination), had been created by mistake. I closed that AfD and delisted it from the log. I will leave a note for each person who commented there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are too few reliable sources to allow writing a proper article. Since the subject has complained about improper editing of the article, it seems there are at least some BLP concerns. This article also drew COI attention since it appeared that the subject was writing most of the content. The weakness of the sources, the difficulty in meeting WP:BIO, the subject's BLP concerns, the neutrality problems caused by such a large contribution by the subject herself, all appear to be solved by deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is a mess and it's likely always going to have BLP/COI issues if the subject keeps editing it, but among the false positives there are more than enough sources from which to draw an article. Unless there are valid BLP issues, subject needs to play by Wiki rules/guidelines. Not doing so is not a reason to delete the article _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as available secondary sources speak compellingly to notability and verifiability. The article is a mess but that's a matter for clean-up, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a number secondary sources (I added a number to this article before the COI edit war started) but these sources mention Wilde's move from station to station. This town to town, up and down the dial is the nature of radio and doesn't indicate notability. I'm not seeing mention of any lasting contribution to the radio industry or any awards per WP:BIO. Claims that she's the only/first female shock jock are WP:original research without references to back them up. Also, given the persistent COI editing. Deletion and salting seems to be in order to prevent future headaches.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by coverage in second party sources not by what they say. A coi is never a valid argument for deletion. It's merely a content issue. --neon white talk 02:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although she appears to be one of an increasing number of people who attract attention by simply being outrageous, being Drivetime DJ on a nationally syndicated slot would probably be sufficient to establish notability. However, there is a ton of unattributable and potentially unverifiable stuff, which may need to be deleted. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove at least 80% of the myspace-style story-of-my-life content that's in it. — Athaenara ✉ 09:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. AFD is not a remedy even if the subject of the article is editing her own article. She minimally qualifies, nuff said.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Though I realize that the quality of the article is not an AfD concern, it sometimes happens that new references will be unearthed during an AfD discussion. It has not happened this time, since none of the voters have come up with new references. It seems inevitable that, due to the COI problems, the article is going to be rewritten so that everything is based on reliable sources. However there are currently only four sources, all of which require payment to view, and the most recent of them was published in 2001. Unless anyone feels like paying to view the references, we will probably wind up with a three-sentence article saying that she exists, she is a shock jock, and she is on the radio. Is this really the best we can do? EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pay-per-view articles aren't really too big of a deal since they refer to newspaper articles that could be verified if necessary. Many editors seem to think that finding several mentions of the article's subject in newspapers or magazines is sufficient to establish notabilty, it's not. WP:NOT states that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. WP:BIO emphasizes this with If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Based on the claims that she is the first and/or only female shock jock, I'm inclined to say she's notable but without reliable 3rd party, non-trivial, sources to back up this claim, it's just a claim. I added the references that I could locate (the only ones that are there) but they are pretty trivial.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ms Wilde seems to be notable enough. The article is not pretty but maybe when she gets more press coverage a better one can be written. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you mind telling why you !voted "delete?" Thank you, RyRy5 (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, but gut with a chainsaw per WP:BLP until some WP:RS can be dug up for some of this stuff. Ford MF (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2008 (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.