Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Shaw (New Zealand) 2


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Liz Shaw (New Zealand)
Non-notable person. Only claim to fame seems to be because she is annoying. Failed NZ Idol contestant, one photographic shoot in a non-notable porn mag (NZX that is not in Wikipedia (not to be confused with the New Zealand stock exchange), wrote letters to a university student newspaper. Previous discussion for deletion is here and the result was No consensus - keep. Midnighttonight 03:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC) entry for me. --noizyboy 03:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.   -- Midnighttonight 03:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC) "
 * Weak keep I'm kicking myself for voting this way (my personal bias is to delete it completely, and I voted that way in the last AfD), but there is enough press (e.g. ) and other mentions here for an article. It does need to be severely trimmed to remove unverifiable info, but. Z iggurat 03:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep due to legitimate press coverage, but remove all comments about things that the subject says she is going to do, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Metropolitan90 03:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Change that to no vote. --Metropolitan90 05:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Although I've been active in editing this article over the last few months, it's always been with gritted teeth. Her notoriety is at a very low level (based, as Midnight points out above, on being a very annoying person). If a couple of newspaper articles are the basis of her ongoing presence here, then may I suggest someone start a wikipedia
 * For the record, I wouldn't object to there being a Wikipedia article on you on the basis of those sources :) Z iggurat 03:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point,(and good to link the name to a stunt I had heard of :-), sorry Noizyboy, you are noteable :-).130.216.191.184 00:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for violating WP:LIVING, by having negative claims without proper sources. Seems borderline attackish to me.  Given the history of the article (see early versions), toasting this, and letting somebody start a new good (extremely well sourced, and neutral) version, in the future, might be best.  --Rob 03:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only reference to her in the New Zealand media that I could find was an article on her being blacklisted as an extra on Shortland Street for leaking the plot details on an Internet forum. Further, she has been dropped from her talent agency so her 15 minutes of fame are up. Her claims to fame are a failed contestant on New Zealand Idol and a photo shoot in a magazine that we don't have an article on. It doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was just vaguely aware of her existance at the peak of her fame because I'm a regular Craccum reader, but the only way I've heard of her since is through this article. Not sufficiently notable.-gadfium 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know if this (SFW) will sway anyone's vote in either direction. I was trying to come up with a joke that combined Miss Shaw's porn activities and William Hung but failed, so I'll abstain. ~ trialsanderrors 05:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and since Attention whore is up for deletion too, maybe we can merge the two articles? (OK, not a serious suggestion). ~ trialsanderrors 06:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as she is not a third place contestant in a spelling bee. um, I mean as per nom. Bwithh 05:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Like Noizyboy, I think that - if the standards for keeping this article are anything to go by, I would also qualify for an article (indeed, I have a "non-article" in userspace). It did survive a previous AFD, FWIW, but the previous vote may well have been far too close to the 15 minutes of fame which are now some time in the past. Grutness...wha?  07:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Needs serious trimming and inline cites to avoid violating WP:LIVING though. -- Avenue 08:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It has been trimmed down a lot and provides information on someone who is becoming more infamous. This has already been discussed and was agreed tobe kept, don't hash it again.  keep the article and maintain it so its not offensive or showing unrelated material. Retarded-misfit 10:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just because someone's fifteen minutes are up doesn't mean that they never had them. Future researchers might well find her referred to in media of the time and need Wikipedia's unique facility and a non-paper-based encyclopedia for keeping details forever. Vizjim 10:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may well prove vital to those plucky future researchers' winning of the Nobel Prize for Pop Culture Studies, especially as there won't be any newspaper databases in the future, due to cyberimperial decree. Bwithh 11:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Who was it who originally made the remark about sarcasm and its depth relative to other forms of humour? Anyway, to address your point, information existing in other (usually paid-for) forms doesn't preclude WP from having it as well. Vizjim 11:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dostoyevsky?. Or interestingly, possibly no-one. Bwithh 11:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good God, I've learnt something about Dostoyevsky by way of Liz Shaw. Who'da thunk it? Vizjim 09:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep As has been said before by Darobsta, even attention whores have their place on the internet (Paris Hilton for example).
 * But Paris Hilton has had her own primetime TV show(s), has been featured in multiple fashion adverts and is a notable heiress/socialite besides her attention-seeking antics. Not really comparable to Liz Shaw Bwithh 11:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

--Astrokey 44 23:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I've been one of those calling for a keep vote in the past, based on her activities on various forums and being active in the New Zealand newspapers. However lately the furor has died down (with one minor yet vaguely amusing incident where she managed to get herself banned from any and all South Pacific Pictures productions) and frankly I see this for what I feel it is: "Liz Hating". While I'm a self-confessed "liz hater" and am tempted to vote keep for that reason, there is no way that Wikipedia can rely on having a neutral POV on this matter when the sources are all very biased against her (because news without an opinion doesn't sell, and bad opinions sell better then good ones). IMO she's a silly bint that needs a kick up the rear, but doesn't need a Wikipedia article devoted to her. Crocos 10:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've been editing the article a little recently. One thing to watch is that there are quite a few Internet forum types (for want of a better term) who are quite quick to add any little bit of information to the article in order to make Liz look bad. It's very hard to keep NPOV also (not least because she is known for mostly negative reasons). I'm not sure how to vote but even if she vanished tomorrow the article will still need watching for at least another year.- SimonLyall 11:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - unless if she had a 'She Bangs She Bangs' (good grief) type fame, then she's not really that notable. --Arnzy (whats up?)  13:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Rklawton 16:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weakest of Weak Keeps per Vizjim and Ziggurat. Agent 86 17:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Google +Liz +Shaw +Zealand +Idol -Wikipedia = 27,600. — Jun. 15, '06  [20:55] < [ freak]|[ talk] >
 * Not the most targeted google search in the world. Try "Liz Shaw" +Zealand +Idol -Wikipedia -intitle:forums -site:nzmusic.com -site:idolblog.com -site:nzgames.com -site:varsity.co.nz -site:critic.co.nz, which filters out most of the forums that she's been haunting over the last couple of years, and you end up with around 30 hits. --noizyboy 21:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Google is what the creator/editors of the article should use, in order to find sources, not AFD voters. Its up to them (editors), to pick out the reliable sources.  The fact there's ample sources available is irrelevant, since they're not in the article.  Per WP:LIVING, every claim in this article (which is all negative) must be very well sourced.  If there were a billion GHits, that wouldn't matter.  --Rob 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont think the second search is accurate either - Why is "idol" required to be in the hits? Liz shaw has done a lot of riciculous publicity garnering things not related to NZ Idol. Try "Liz Shaw" +Zealand -Wikipedia -intitle:forums -site:nzmusic.com -site:idolblog.com -site:nzgames.com -site:varsity.co.nz -site:critic.co.nz, and you get over 1000 hits. --Nambio 00:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The +idol bit keeps out most of the hits that relate to 'Liz Shaws' that aren't the Liz Shaw in question. That search you listed gets a lot of hits for the Dr Who Liz Shaw. --noizyboy 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep As much as we may dislike her, she is constantly appearing in the media. 3 weeks she was on the front page of a national newspaper. She is somehow constantly in the media spotlight. At some point, someone may wonder "Who is Liz Shaw? Why is there a 130 page long forum thread dedicated to her?" they should be able to find that info at wiki --Nambio 00:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons stated by Avenue. BrownHornet21 00:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not paper. Snugspout 01:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, although in 10 years she won't be remembered. A Steve Bartman, if you will. AdamBiswanger1 03:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per freakofnurture, but remove any unsourced negative claims. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Never heard of her and I live in New Zealand.--James Bond 09:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Biased Keep She was in two of my lectures last year. Oh boy... what a strange one! Anyone capable of wearing a miniskirt, no underwear and sneakers in 10 degree weather deserves an article (ok just kidding, but she is certainly notable in New Zealand). --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  22:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep relatively notable in New Zealand. Hauser 10:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As others have said, edit out unsourced negative claims. She is well noted in New Zealand, as Nambio said she was on the front page of the new paper and is constantly in the lime light. Stevee2 11:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I have not contributed to the article, and have no interest in at all in the subject, but just because I would rather people wrote about what I consider more worthwhile should not allow the deletion of accurate material about subjects we're not interested in. Yes, I have heard of her, (and good luck to any young New Zealanders who haven't).  The basic rules of WP:BIO are so restrictive that I suspect most of the bios on wikipedia would fail the test - the begining of WP:BIO should be read in conjunction with the other means of obtaining notability, such as the google test.  She passes the google test.  Criticism of the living person is a matter sorted by editing the material not deleting the whole article - and I notice in passing the Wikipedia living person guidelines are clearly based on U.S. law and really need someone to have a thought about other nations defamation laws.  Winstonwolfe 00:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability was established satisfactorily when this article was created - the subject has continued to make media appearances and headlines since then. Remove unverified claims and retain the article; it does have relevance for New Zealand audiences. --Samf-nz 06:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep SHe appears to have been made notable by her own attention-seeking behavior, but is notable nonetheless. Ace of Sevens 15:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Extremely non-notable. New Zealanders who haven't watched every episode of NZ Idol are very unlikely to have heard of her. Every instance of her being mentioned here seems to relate to her self promotion. Mostlyharmless 02:53, 20 June 2006 (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.