Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Wahl


 * 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 no consensus. Technically we have 5 keeps, 2 deletes, and 1 merge & redirect, which arithmetically means no consensus very close to keep. (I could have relisted it and we might have got a clear keep as a result). Essentially, we are discussing whether WP:ONEEVENT applies. This discussions are best held quite some time after event. If in a year someoneh would still wish to nominate her, try. At this point, the article is kept by default.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Liz Wahl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I believe this article was created too soon and is based entirely on a momentary scandal. We cannot promote some aspiring young lady who decided to improve her popularity ratings. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 30.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 01:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep'Liz Wahl made national and international headlines when she took a bold public stance. She has shined a light on Russia's current effort to promote propaganda and silence free speech. There is a reason her message spread throughout the world. In light of Russia's current actions in Ukraine, Wahl's message was timely and valuable.  The theories out there that aim to discredit her were fabricated by RT.  She is an honorable young lady with a promising future ahead of her.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontherecord27 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 *  has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Drm310 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep dreaming, Liz. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Ontherecord27, if you want the article to stay, you should place the word "Keep" in front of your contribution, in bold. And if you got some valuable additional info, please feel free to improve the article. I am not sure what my vote will be, but I'm only giving you some advice. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep if improved Liz Wahl was an anchor on a heavily distributed YouTube based show for 2 1/2 years. I think there should be an article on her. But I'd agree the current article isn't about Liz Wahl in general but rather about one media incident. I'd like to see if the article can be improved by covering other incidents and other facts. That being said I'm not seeing much content about her. So keep if the article can be improved otherwise delete CD-Host (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a viable argument! If you can improve it, improve it. If you can't or don't want to, then it should be judged as it is. The deletion process gives people a week to improve the article. You can't keep it just because you think it's notable. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep & Improve As per above the article focuses primarily on the incident and not her ... But I'm sure with improvements all can be changed & improved. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  21:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally fails the rules against one-event articles. This might rate mention in an article entirled Media coverage of the Crimea crisis, but it does not rate its own article. We don't have articles for people who participated in similar grandstanding during WWI.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect and/or merge for the moment to a Controversies and criticisms of RT-article that needs to be revived. Like there are controversy-articles on all major news-networks, there was one on RT (see ). However, this one was merged with RT News without a serious discussion. I suggest we reinstate it. For the moment, we could add Liz Wahl's story to it. If her career continues to be notable after this, we can reinstate a seperate article again. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep & Improve Liz Wahl was a nationally known news anchor seen on the RT web site, the RT YouTube channel, and broadcast over-the-air on the MHz WorldView network (broadcast by many U.S. public television channels) for more than two years. Many far less prominent local television anchors have a Wikipedia page.  Liz Wahl was sufficiently notable that she probably should have had a Wikipedia page long before her resignation incident. X5dna (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and Improve Liz Wahl was well enough known that she should have an article. The current article just needs improvement, as right now it focuses on one incident. As I understand it, that violates Wiki guidelines; however, it should be fixed, not deleted. --User Necro Shea mo Sig.jpg  Necro  Shea  mo  Symbol of Orthodoxy.svg 00:47, 3 April 2014 (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.