Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Parsons


 * 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   keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Lynn Parsons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a British radio presenter. Subject posted this message to my talk page earlier this evening expressing concern about some of the content, and requesting the page's deletion. I posted this reply. As she's not overly notable I'm inclined to think we should honour her request. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * delete none of the current sources suggest any sort of major impact or notoriety, merely standard coverage of "she is host of X show", and those are primarily by the the network hosting the show or thinly disguised regurgitations of PR releases. The name brings up a lot of google news hits but most are clearly trivial about different individuals. until the project rejects the "anyone can edit anything" ethos, it does not need additional articles about marginally notable living people to try and maintain. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete A list of job changes taken from online trade rags doesn't demonstrate notability. Nor does the fascinating info taken from her employer's site (which isn't exactly a WP:THIRDPARTY source) that "Her hobbies and interests include Feng Shui, science, the paranormal, English literature, antiques and swimming." First Light (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Aside from this, none of the third-party sources are about the subject, only mentioning the subject in passing. The article fails WP:GNG.  Coupled with the BLP concerns, supposedly from the subject herself, it seems best to remove the article at this time. - SudoGhost 02:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There are lots of these minor DJ/presenter articles floating around, and I wonder whether we shouldn't bring a few more here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have AFDd a few others, most of which appear to either be promotional pieces or maybe written by people who want to see their favourite DJ mentioned on Wikipedia. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * i dont think _this AfD_ is the place to bundle them. this one has someone claiming to be the subject who also wants the article deleted. in many others, editors claiming to be the subject _want_ the article. different circumstances that should be handled differently. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I haven't bundled them together, and was just mentioning it in the context of non-notable DJs, of which the subject is one. They're all separate nominations. I think to deal with them as one would be problematic. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I think there is a case for notability, Radio 1 and 2 are national BBC outlets, but it's borderline, and if she wants it to go, that's fine with me  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  18:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

*Courtesy delete Nobody Ent 20:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Ambivalent. Nobody Ent 12:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete because the subject has asked that it be deleted. Cla68 (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since when did we delete articles simply because some random IP claiming to be the subject asks us to? Lynn Parsons clearly meets the general notability guidelines. The article should be improved, not deleted. Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing "significant coverage in third party sources" - could you point them out? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may, I did just add a link to a trade story in Radio Today (website), below, in which she is the subject of the story. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 of the Radio Today pieces are uncredited to any specific authors and ring suspiciously of regurgitated press releases. the one that is specific author credited is about Zoe Ball and not Parsons. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The one I linked to may ring suspiciously to you but not to me. It specifically states that she was interviewed by the publication, which is not something one sees in a reprinted press release. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per "I am happy for you to remove the page altogether rather than have lies in print about me." combined with minor notability. If there's serious doubt if the IP is actually the person claimed, I'm sure there's a way to contact her and verify the identity. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are indeed "lies" in the article, which I rather doubt, wouldn't the proper thing to do be to fix them? Of course, that would require more work than this lazy delete discussion though. Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In a world where everyone had infinite time for debate and infinite patience with pettiness and zero costs from lies, your statement would be true. But those ideal assumptions often fail badly in practice. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The truth is that almost all of Wikipedia's articles are unmitigated crap, because to transform them from crap requires doing some work. So why not do that work instead of deleting the crap? Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP addresses your point directly - "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced, because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies.". Indeed, the idea that a living person's biography can or should be treated according to the practical standard of (you said it, not me) "almost all of Wikipedia's articles are unmitigated crap", shows where Wikipedia veers from merely poor quality into possibly downright harmful to people. While this particular article is hardly the worst, one should err on the side of caution. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't, and the fact you believe it does simply displays your profound misunderstanding. Malleus Fatuorum 03:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, now, Malleus, I'm perfectly capable of flaming back, but I'll forbear. Let's put it this way - the BLP argument is well-trod ground, and I've responded as best I can to your arguments. If I have a "profound misunderstanding" of them, perhaps consider that they aren't clear. I hope you'll at least take into account the possibility that I could both understand them and disagree strongly (I don't believe understanding means any sort of agreement _per se_ - it's possible to e.g. understand what drives someone to call for the overthrow of a government by force and violence, but still think the end result would be a disaster of a ruined country). Sigh. Every once in a while I get into these discussions under the apparent delusion it might do some good. But it never seems to. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you ought to think about the credibility of your position, and refresh your memory of what "flaming" actually is. Malleus Fatuorum 04:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * More "utility", of participation. And the memory be green :-(. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What is that gibberish supposed to mean? Malleus Fatuorum 05:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The most prominent news story seems to be this one, about her replacement gig. The rest do seem to be more passing mentions, from what I see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PRESERVE. There are enough trade industry stories on her to narrowly meet notability guidelines, and as MF points out, concerns over such things as date of birth could easily be addressed by simply removing such content from the BLP article, if actually necessary, or just placing a fact-tag. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Oh no, please not that "people can ask to have their articles deleted" nonsense again. We emphatically must not care of the subject wishes on that -we have not only the right, but even the duty towards our readers to keep correct, sourced information about her, no matter what she thinks of it. If we bend to external pressures we lose any credibility. That said, the subject is massively notable -there are multiple sources about her and she has been a BBC radio presenter multiple times. There was wrong information about her? Duly noted, problem fixed, let's move on. -- Cycl o pia talk  20:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think a couple of brief in-industry sources that address her make her "massively notable" by any means, since they are all from the same source, which fails WP:GNG ("Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.") A case could be made for borderline notability, but the sources currently in the article and what I've seen online all fail to meet the notability requirements.  Working for a notable company does not make one notable. - SudoGhost 21:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not that. She's mentioned lots of times by The Guardian, for example. And her long and outstanding career meets WP:ENT points 1 and 3. I'd say it's well beyond borderline. -- Cycl o pia  talk  23:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Her name is mentioned in passing a few times, she isn't the subject of any of those articles in any capacity. - SudoGhost 00:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG states that mentions need not be the main topic of the source material. That said, we also have the fact she meets WP:ENT. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * it does not need to be the main topic, but it does need to be substantial and more than passing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I also don't see her meeting the criteria of WP:ENT by any means. - SudoGhost 11:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ENT #1: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. - Being a presenter on the most popular radio station of United Kingdom qualifies as such in my book. Also she did a lot of work on many notable radio stations, thus qualifying for the "prolific" part of WP:ENT #3. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have the strongly disagree with you on that one. Being a radio presenter is nowhere near the same as being in a production, and the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources supports that.  If she met WP:ENT, there'd be some reliable sources reflecting the fact that this matters.  There isn't, so it kind of reflects that fact that yes, she was a radio presenter, but reliable sources don't seem to care. - SudoGhost 13:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that we have, indeed, secondary sources about her, and not a few; apart from this, the existence of guidelines like WP:ENT is needed exactly because you can have notability for criteria different from the multiple secondary sources of WP:GNG. In other words, you can meet WP:ENT without meeting WP:GNG (but in this case we meet both) -- Cycl o pia talk  13:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said below, that's not the case. WP:GNG requires multiple sources, we have one: Radio Today.  The others are either trivial mentions that say her name in passing while describing another subject, are primary sources, or don't even mention her name at all.  Multiple publications from the same source are insufficient, and the others completely fall short of establishing any notability.  WP:ENT is also not met, because a presenter for a radio program is not covered under that criteria. - SudoGhost 13:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 *  WP:ENT is also not met, because a presenter for a radio program is not covered under that criteria. - Says who? -- Cycl o pia talk  15:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering how you figured it was under that criteria, given that WP:ENT is a completely different type of public figure. - SudoGhost 15:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't a radio show presenter an entertainer, almost by definition? -- Cycl o pia talk  15:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * i for one have rarely, if ever, been "entertained" by a radio dj. ;-) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Having Googled her, I believe she can be contacted via her agent mentioned here or through her show at Smooth Radio. The far from congenial tone of the posting suggests I shouldn't do it myself, but anyone else is welcome to have a go. As an occasional listener to Smooth Radio I'd heard mention of an interview with Dawn French, which is why I was inclined to believe it could be her. Sadly, I'm informed the gremlins got into her recording equipment, meaning no conversation was recorded, so we'll never know what they discussed. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds a bit unlikely to me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's certainly an element of doubt, but that's the problem with anonymous IPs, we don't know who the person at the other end is. It could be genuine or just someone pretending to be her. I did suggest contacting (hope that's the right email address for this sort of thing) if there were concerns. I'm presuming she hasn't done so as we would have heard something from them. Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A confession I will make is adding 2 possible years of birth (one bone of contention), but instead of the 1998 reference I'd tracked down (see here) I picked up a note I'd made and pasted that in instead. Also, I appear unable to do the math as I was a year out. The rest of the material she had concerns about was added anonymously, so I can't help there. Most of the rest consisted of instances where she'd filled in for other presenters on Radio 2. Fascinating if you want to learn the history of the Radio 2 schedule, but not encycopedic. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How are you defining "encyclopedic"? Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Information that's sourced, I guess. A lot of the information was "she stood in for X on such and such a date, then for Y on such and such a date." While it may be true that she did so, we're never going to be able to find sources for it because under most circumstances it's not the sort of thing that anyone's going to report. I think this sort of thing probably happens with a lot of presenters, i.e., that they do a short stint on a radio (or even television) show because the regular presenter goes off on holiday, and someone listening to/watching that show goes to Wikipedia and starts typing. 00:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep So this is only about name and date of birth? That's all? Is her name as presented on the BBC webpage incorrect? If we don't have a source for her birth date, then we should remove it, that's apparent, but i'm not seeing anything more than that. As long as all the information is properly sourced, then there isn't an issue. Silver  seren C 22:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Marginal notability (standard BBC bio and trade magazine blurbs, and 2 name-drops in the Guardian) that requests deletion. Nothing else to see here. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing to see if you don't bother to look, certainly. For instance, Lynn Parsons was considered sufficiently notable by the author of KISS FM: From Radical Radio to Big Business (2011) to be included as an example of DJs who made a successful transition from pirate to legitimate radio, along with others such as Pete Tong. There's also a 1998 Sunday Mercury article about Parsons, neither of which were hard to find. Malleus Fatuorum 03:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of which are notable, or go towards establishing this person's notability. Keep squeezing that blood from a stone, though. Tarc (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the subject of the article that needs to be notable, not the sources. How many books or newspaper articles does a person have to be mentioned in before they become notable, in your opinion? Malleus Fatuorum 05:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Re the Sunday Mercury: I see it is a Birmingham-based paper founded in 1918, now owned by Britain's biggest newspaper group. I'm having trouble imagining why we wouldn't consider this a reliable source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Both the sources and the notability are marginal, but that should be sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If they are marginal, then wouldn't that be sufficient to fall under WP:BIODEL ? Tarc (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if you're going to claim that presenters of nationally broadcast radio shows are "non-public figures". Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will make it clearer. The subject is notable, though not by any great shakes.  The sources aren't great, but they suffice.  My !vote is keep.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If we do keep this, and if she did, indeed, make a successful crossover from pirate radio to legitimate broadcasting then perhaps someone can cite the Kiss FM book as a reference. Having said that, we have several former pirate DJs who made that move. She's won no major awards, and, as far as we know, doesn't appear to have influenced the career decisions of any other presenters who've started in the business after her. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets GNG per source coverage (Sunday Mercury interview, Kiss FM, etc), GNG /BASIC supersedes ENT. Also, looking at the post by the subject (assuming that's actually the subject and not a random IP), it seems to say that article deletion is preferable to misinformation - which is solvable by editing/removing the misinformation. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything left is now referenced, but the questions as to whether it was her deepens. The same IP address made this edit in March 2011, removing some accurate information, and actually adding a piece of information removed as "lies" on 2 November. It may be a dynamic IP, but what are the chances of her inheriting an IP address that was earlier used to edit her article? It's possible, I guess, but the odds against it must be extremely remote. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it was rather naive to assume that this IP address had anything to do with Lynn Parsons. And as Nikkimaria has pointed out, no request for deletion was made in any case, so the "courtesy delete" argument deployed above is spurious. Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed so, but I did assume good faith, not least because she's not the most well-known person in the public eye. Had someone claiming to be, say, Barack Obama or Tony Blair posted on my talk page with concerns about those articles, I definitely would have questioned it further. Anyway, given the question over the posting's authenticity and that as I've fixed the issue, I agree both with MF and Nikkimaria on the courtesy delete, so the question now is clearly one of notability. Does she meet the guidelines? I'm not sure she does, but if the vote is to keep then I can live with that. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Assume good faith" =/= "Switch off brain". Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The odds are not so remote if that IP belongs to a machine which is used by several different people, or their office is behind some sort of firewall/proxy which makes all internal computers look like they are coming from the same address. Neither situation is particularly rare. Really, it's not impossible to just write her and verify, rather than speculating. I'm tempted to do it myself, but I'm in a bad political position in this debate. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm overlooking something, but the sources you're saying have coverage really don't. Kiss FM doesn't even mention her name, and the Guardian is a trivial mention, mentioning her name in passing while discussing a different subject.  She does not meet the criteria of WP:BASIC, because she hasn't been the subject of any of those, the only source that is about the subject is an industry news source "Radio Today", and that's it.  There are multiple instances of the subject being mentioned in Radio Today, but as WP:GNG and WP:BASIC both point out, that's not sufficient. - SudoGhost 13:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * comment would someone who has access to the Mercury interview place any relelvent content into the article? The first few paragraphs in the intro provide nothing useful as far as I can see. i have placed the comment from the KISS book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meet guidelines. Are we going to have this debate over radio presenters again? If they are willing to earn a living in a public place then they have to deal with having content written about them in a public place. No offence Paul but you say "not notable" yet most of the article history illustrates that you clearly think so. I sniff a COI.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have edited her article, but as part of a wider improvement of Smooth Radio related stuff because I've been working towards a GA-nomination for Smooth for several months now. I've also edited Simon Bates, Pat Sharp, Mark Goodier and a few others along the way, often adding related references. Before I started there was virtually nothing by way of sources for Lynn Parsons except her Radio 2 biography, a personal site and one or two other bits and pieces. I'm not generally a deletionist, instead preferring to improve articles where possible, looking to establish notability rather than just throwing something in the bin, and I can happily say I've improved this one. On the other hand, she's not Terry Wogan or Chris Evans, so I'm relaxed about whether or not it should be included here. Assuming it was her, and as a major editor of the page, I was happy to honour her request. Is that a Conflict of interest? Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Extra comment that your comment made me think of: I mean, I would be more sympathetic and likely to vote Delete if there was a lot of negative information in the article or something. But since it appears to be just about name and birth date, which is so petty and so easily fixable from the subject's end, I don't see any reason to listen to it. Silver  seren C 03:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep From the refs in the article, I don't think she passes the significant coverage portion of GNG. However, looking on-line there is enough (not a huge amount, but enough) sources to pass.  Bgwhite (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- to honor the subject's wish. DracoE 08:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject has expressed no such wish. Malleus Fatuorum 12:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And even if it did, it's not a valid rationale. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - the concerns of the subject of the article appear to have been addressed and an OTRS ticket is the next step if she still has some concerns. The topic meets WP:GNG per what is in the article and what is posted above. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article has been edited significantly since the nomination was posted, and plainly meets the requirements of WP:GNG now. Prioryman (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No significant coverage has been added since the article was nominated for deletion; trivial coverage (i.e. a single name mentioned in passing when discussing another subject) is specifically pointed out by WP:GNG as being insubstantial. - SudoGhost 16:27, 10 November 2012 (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.