Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Franzen

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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Franzen[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced BLP since at least January 2008. Person is borderline as far as WP:N is concerned and there is an unsubstantiated claim that the subject requests deletion (I asked the user to have the subject email the Foundation if this is indeed true). I haven't found RS, third-party sources about this person, only social networking sites, WP mirrors, and clips of her news reports. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Michelle Franzen" + NBC = 216,000 sources on Google. The news link above: 112 news sources. WP:ANYBIO The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field; or WP:ENT Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.[1] As far as the subject requesting the article removed, last time I checked, censorship was not a widely accepted policy of Wikipedia's. The subject, as a national network television news correspondent and television personality is clearly notable, with clear sources to support. Cindamuse (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's a notable reporter, as evidenced by the coverage found on Google. I'll see about adding more sources. —fetch ·comms 22:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:CSD_G7.(see [2]) Also, byline hits does not establish notability. Non of the 100+ news articles are about her.--Dodo bird (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- G7 only applies if the only contributor of substantive content on the article requests deletion either explicitly or by blanking the page. More than one person has contributed substantive content, and there is no evidence that the article creator has requested deletion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 01:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have cleaned up the article, removed unsourced material, made it more neutral, and added more references. —fetch ·comms 04:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FetchcommsSilent Bob (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Dead link issues need to be addressed. The faces on the TV seem to be regarded as public figures and thus inherently notable, the writers, camera operators, producers, etc. not so much. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 30 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.