Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Charlesworth

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Charlesworth[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)

She is an active co-anchor who reports on a wide range of content for WABC, but I cannot find sourcing about her to establish notability. Star Mississippi 18:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need way more than a publication of a person's employer to show that they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was in rough shape when nominated, but I found good coverage of her here https://skinident.com/fileadmin/img/spanish-pictures/pdf/Dermatology_Insights_2.pdf, a whole bunch of primary sources about her cancer and she's a key character in a fictional novel. I've added them in. CT55555 (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subpar sourcing here doesn’t mean she isn’t notable. She is one of the most well-known tv reporters in New York City. Trillfendi (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending further evaluation of offline sources Many of the sources are in the article are offline or do not have links. It could be assumed that those magazines establish notability, but because its offline, we can not see that content. Rlink2 (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more week more to bring forth any additional sources that would establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've again added more to the article, specifically early life and family. The source I've used is mostly primary, but does also include some independent fact checking at the end about her father. I've relied on primary source for early life, but I consdier that sufficiently not controversial to safely use a primary source for. Additional comment, I did add several sources after the only delete !vote so I'd just like to highlight that the article is improved since the nomination and the only delete vote and therefore since the improvements we've only had a positive and a neutral-ish (I hope that's a fair summary User:Rlink2) comment plus my keep. CT55555 (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CT55555. Article seems to be in much better shape since being nominated for deletion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not overwhelming coverage, but enough. Here's another non-trivial New York Times article about her: https://web.archive.org/web/20140105045618/https://maplewood.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/local-locals-michelle-charlesworth/ --GRuban (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2022 (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.