Talk:Liana Kerzner

Nominating for deletion
Nominating for deletion. No credible journalism has ever been found on Liana, outside of her being married to Ed the Sock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.222.4 (talk • contribs)

Context for merger
This merger occurred because editor Vera de Kok was confronted by Liana Kerzner regarding her experiences with a stalker who constantly defaced her original article with defamatory, unsupported claims, which Wikipedia editors allowed to stand. When confronted over social media over this, De Kok, instead of locking the article as per Wikipedia protocols, initiated a merger of the article instead while acting unprofessionally towards Kerzner. Those who raised objection towards her unprofessional attitude were dismissed by De Kok as 'defending their idol', therefore indicating there is evidence of some level of editorial abuse and malicious intent behind the maneuver, as the article was not merged until the complaint was brought up. ---Mausmerryjest (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mausmerryjest (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * https://www.tumblr.com/liana-k-truth - seems like Liana Kerzner has a lot of issues with a lot of people, sweetie. Still doesn't make her notable :) 45.72.203.231 (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that the page should be restored. The main argument against her notability was, frankly, just sexism and denying her professional accomplishments, particularly refusing to acknowledge her as a journalist. The article had plenty of referencing to establish her notability. This background demonstrating the bad faith of the merger just proves the point. In response to the "sweetie" comment, the notability requirements do not contemplate whether or not we personally like the person. That "source" is also openly hostile to her (e.g. calling her a "Psycho Bitch From Hell" in the header), not to mention poorly referenced, so I think it should be disregarded for the purposes of Wikipedia. We couldn't use it in the article, so we shouldn't use it to deny the subject's notability. lethargilistic (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)