Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz West (2nd nomination)

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liz West[edit]

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

Nominating for AfD on behalf of 69.181.249.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (I declined his/her speedy deletion request for the article). See Talk:Liz West#Deletion. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is accurate, except, the correct external website for Ms. West is: http://www.lizwest.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.19.24 (talk • contribs)
Delete - she fails both WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:POLITICIAN - not had significant roles, no evidence of a cult following, no unique contributions, and a local city council candidate doesn't meet notability. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per instigator. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note that the first AFD resulted in delete. The article was recreated within days, but if there was a DRV I can't find it. This could actually have been handled as a speedy under G4 if it had been noticed at the time. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. The article as it stands right now is different enough from the original deleted version that a new discussion is necessary. An AFD is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article, if they attain greater notability at a later date — it's merely a judgement on the specific version of the article that exists at the time of discussion. The new claim of notability may not be particularly strong, but given that it's different from the earlier version, it can't be speedied as a G4 anymore. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know; that's why I wrote "if it had been noticed at the time." The candidacy is obviously a recent addition, hence the new AFD. (The speedy tag I had added was a DB-BIO, which I obviously think still applies.) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I misunderstood and thought you just meant it could have been speedied if that had been noticed before the new nomination was submitted to AFD. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal election candidates are not notable for their candidacies alone, per WP:POLITICIAN, and being a local television journalist doesn't constitute a particularly strong claim of notability, either — at least not in the absence of really solid sources. The only sources being brought to bear here are her campaign website, her profile on the website of a TV channel she's worked for, and one entry in The Globe and Mail's Toronto municipal politics blog — which means the only source here that passes the "independent of the topic" test fails the "substantial coverage" one. Delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation if she wins in the fall. And I'm a Torontonian, to boot. Bearcat (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete The article has significant additions since first ask for deletion that prove she meets the notability standard. She is referenced as being awarded by the readers of the Toronto Sun as 2007's Best TV Entertainment Reporter - clear evidence of both a large fan base and wide spread popularity. Apparently she won this award in 2006, but I have yet to find the reference and post it. She is also on air right now hosting a TV show broadcast on Comopolitain TV - as per reference. That is notable. As far as her political notability, - the context of the political article is important - The City of Toronto is Canada's 5th largest government - in a blog about Toronto city politics by the Toronto City Hall Beat Reporter for a major Canadian Daily newspaper - the Globe and Mail, she is being compared to Adam Vaughan, a high profile city councillor - essentially, the post is saying she is notable and that she is not just being described as just another city council candidate. The article is also accurate and fair in its treatment description of her. Riverdalejoe (talk) 20:09, 27 August 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.