Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jami Floyd


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 02:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Jami Floyd

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

It's not clear from the article that the subject meets WP:BIO. As she's a journalist, there are many Google hits to coverage by her, but the article cites no independent third party coverage of her. She's reported to have received a number of professional awards, but I can't ascertain whether these are notable or significant awards. Oh, and the only reference in the article is a dead link.  Sandstein  09:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( X! ·  talk )  · @151  · 02:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I added a different bio link to the article (haven't used it as a source yet, but it's there for others to use), and there are a decent number of gbook hits mentioning her including this, but I'm still unsure as to whether she passes WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak delete. We've kept bios of people less notable, deleted bios of people more notable. THF (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hate to be harsh, but she's not a not a major media star, not a major legal analyst, and she has not won any major awards. This is attested by the lack of third-party coverage.-- Pink Bull  14:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as subject does indeed have coverage by reliable 3rd part sources, thus meeting WP:GNG. That she is an opinion-maker and her views are sought show her as notable. That and her awards show she's "major" enough for Wikipedia. Article can be improved through normal editing and as such is no reason to delete  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I looked at those sources, reliable many of them are, but the content is lacking. Mention in passing is not significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.