Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorrie Lynch


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. My tendency when things like User:Siroxo rewriting this article occur is to relist this article but I think I'm too liberal with relistings so I'll close this now as No consensus instead as the guidelines suggest we do. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Lorrie Lynch

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Looks like page was made with minimal sources long ago and by the subject of the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources brought up in this AFD discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some cursory searching of this subject turns up enough to convince me. For example,Exploring journalism and the media has 17 citations per Google Scholar, including a review published in a journal. I also see some sigcov here:, and other evidence of influence in subject's field: . Note, some text from the apparent COI does remain and should probably be rewritten/verified.  &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women,  and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep She should qualify under Notability (academics) because she has written several textbooks. She was a founder of and a journalist at USA Today and she wrote several textbooks, which should qualify for "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" under Notability (people). Starlighsky (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Starlighsky
 * Delete - nothing here to suggest notability. Writing books does not qualify, not does working for a newspaper. Deb (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete or maybe draftify, not sure there is enough there but seems borderline. Noticed the subject also seems to have contributed to her article briefly in 2008. - Indefensible (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've taken a pass on the article. Still needs work but it's in a better state now. I stick with my !vote after further investigation. &mdash;siro&chi;o 05:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Struck delete vote above per Siroxo. Hesitant to vote keep still but will not stand in the way of that. - Indefensible (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Admittedly, there are lots of other academics with articles on this site about which this could also be said, but this article does not seem to establish notability under WP:GNG guidelines. However, I won’t object if there is consensus to keep. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2023 (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.