Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Mair

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. Putting aside any claim about paid editing and User:PNW Raven, the concern is about her meeting GNG is answered multiple times. The nominator even says during the nomination that the article "appears to be a puff piece" and "Just thought I'd put it out there" which suggests that they didn't do any independent searching themselves before nominating. The article is in dire need of cleanup and some restructuring, but AFD isn't the place for that. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 05:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Mair[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)

This appears to be a puff piece about a political staffer that would be better suited to her LinkedIn profile. Happy to be proven wrong if this person is in fact notable. Just thought I'd put it out there. Cheers Locochoko (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am addressing the claim that "a major contributor appears to have a close connection with its subject." I am not a major contributor to the article, and I do not have a "close" connection to the subject. I have a casual acquaintance with Liz Mair through another person I know who lives on the opposite coast from me (I live on the west coast) and who I seldom see. I was contacted by this person because she knew I edited on Wikipedia. I was asked if I could assist with formatting the page and adding additional neutral and "fact-based" content, which I did NOT write. I agreed as this gave me an opportunity to learn some additional technical editing skills. I also openly sought technical advice from Wiki editors on how to get a photo of the subject approved and passed on that information. From the beginning, I stated to Wikipedia, openly and multiple times, including on the Talk Page, that I have absolutely NO participation whatsoever in writing or formulating the editorial content. I agreed to only help format the page and made it clear I would not contribute to the editorial content due to conflict of interest issues. I have no affiliation with any other person or organization mentioned in this article, other I am a Democrat. Liz Mair is a Republican.PNW Raven (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add that Liz Mair is a notable Republican strategist/consultant and pundit (and not a "political staffer" being as she owns and heads her own consulting firm), who writes extensive political articles in a variety of newspapers such as The Daily Beast, US News, The New York Times, among others, and regularly appears on various national TV news channels giving political analysis and opinions. She just became more "notable" as I heard in yesterday's national news media that she is listed as a defendant Rep. Devin Nunes' $250 million dollar law suit for defamation of character (by being mean in a tweet or something to that effect).PNW Raven (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PNW Raven! Fair enough re the COI, but I’m still not sure this person really meets Wikipedia’s rather stringent notability standards at this point. She may well do in the future, but the content (which you did not write) still reads as self promotion. Anyway, I’ll leave it to other people to see what they reckon. Cheers! Locochoko (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We'll see what others have to say about it. And correct, I did not write the text. It was emailed to me in its entirety, and I replaced the older content with the new text by copy and paste, which I then formatted into sections and added internal links. PNW Raven (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google search produces quite a few hits, she is quoted for being an anti-Trump Republican in a number of spots (Wash Examiner, OreganLive) and is now the subject of a lolsuit brought by Devin Nunes for being annoying on twitter: TheHill. Its highly likely that she is notable enough for inclusion, but the state of her article is pretty poor and not made better by the likely WP:UPE from PNW Raven. SWL36 (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have recommended that the article content needs to be significantly improved according to the suggestions that have been stated, and advised that the author(s) view similar-type pages as a guide. I believe it will be revised in the near future. I have no further involvement with this article. As I have stated, repeatedly, the work I did (formatting the page) was as a favor to someone I know. The article had been rated a stub-class, and the authors had attempted to improve it.PNW Raven (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seriously in need of editing, but doesn't seem to violate any policy and sources (although clunky and poorly arranged) pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 2:58 pm, Today (UTC−5)
I think this could use some more input, and not just for concerns around COI. There are really only two real sources with coverage on the page — everything else just proves she wrote for an organization — and even then, only one is really about her. There are plenty of mentions out there, but everything is either a: 1) process stories from 2015/2016; 2) she wrote a bad tweet; or 3) "Devin Nunes is suing a funny twitter account! Oh, and also this person". None of that seems like WP:SIGCOV to me. I think it's certainly possible that she is notable through the combination of all three of those, but I'm not convinced either way. I had intended to relist this, as regardless I don't think we've reached a convincing consensus yet, but at this point I think I'm too invested in that idea/my own equivocation so I'm leaving it as a comment. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are enough to pass WP:GNG and AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The actual subject meets WP:GNG with: a Washington Examiner article, an Oregon Live (The Oregonian) article, and an MSNBC interview (video here) all constituting significant coverage by reliable sources (on both sides of the political spectrum). Also 7 or so sentences on her (maybe significant coverage?) in this Fox News article. Many of the other sources are passing mentions or not reliable sources, but these are sufficient. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2019 (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.