Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonia Poulton


 * 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. Nakon 05:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sonia Poulton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Journalist is non-notable. Sources are predominantly primary sources and/or closely connected to subject. Creator of article may have a conflict of interest by being related to subject. Penbat (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I deleted really useless info like she has a daughter and where subject went to elementary school already. Legacypac (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to add that it reads to me like a promotional CV.--Penbat (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep : The current citations as I found them are an utter train wreck of tabloid journalism and is absolutely right to strip the stuff out that completely violates WP:BLP, but nevertheless her presence across BBC Radio alone gives me confidence I can salvage a proper biography with good sources out of it. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  12:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The article could use better sources, but the fact that she has a live show on TV should be notable enough in its own right. We are talking BBC, not "KRAP"/AM radio/local cable access. Certainly she seems to have stirred up some controversy, and that carries some notability as well.  It could stand improvement in tone, and be less promotional. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: She does not have a TV show, live or otherwise. She has sporadically appeared as a guest on BBC radio programs and has in the past appeared as a guest on ITV TV shows such as "This Morning" when debating with Katie Hopkins.--Penbat (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really think I could be charitable enough to say that calling Poulton a "zebra in a wig" is "debating". ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see my error - her live show "Sonia Poulton Live" Was on The_People's_Voice_(internet_TV_station). Even so, her various appearances in other media are still enough to retain the page in an improved form. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And assuming that said TV station is actually notable (I'm surprised it is), it means we can't simply redirect Poulton to the Daily Mail, which would be my option #2, which kind of cements a keep vote. Even so, I would really really like all traces of the Mail obliterated as sources if at all possible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Tentative Keep: The original article was a bit of a mess, but there's been some good work done on it and I think there are enough good sources now to demonstrate notability. Squinge (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed to Tentative based on the two comments below - will see how it goes in the 7 days. Squinge (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have just removed a couple of blatant errors/exaggerations from the intro claiming she is a broadcaster and she has worked for international organizations. Quite honestly, once you strip away the hype she is quite a marginal journalist, occasionally writing columns as a freelancer for UK national newspapers and occasionally making guest appearances on UK TV and radio shows. Just deleted another unsupported statement "contributed to The Jeremy Vine Show on Radio 2 for THREE years" - Poulton does not even claim this on her own website. --Penbat (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit more cleanup on the article. I have noticed the more I dig into sources, the more controversy and criticism I'm uncovering. If Poulton herself wanted the article gone per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, I could support that. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Its heroic for you to do so much work but it looks to me more a goner than before. I have just cleaned up several bits of blatant hype I wasnt aware of when I raised the AFD. Some of the remaining material remains dubiously sourced eg from Poultons own website.--Penbat (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one - but thankyou as well for your improvements to the article. I haven't fixed everything yet, though I believe everything I haven't swept through ie: the Mail and her own site is tagged as or  (and if it isn't, please tag it). I would say her own site is okay for basic information like her full name, alma mater and basic dates of employment though per WP:SELFPUB that's about all you can do. Still, I have now learned a new insult - "zebra in a wig", and if nothing else, that's worth taking away from this. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There must be hundreds of journalists at Poulton's level who dont have a Wikipedia entry. Just to pick an example at random, as she happens to get a mention in the article - Shona Sibary https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22shona+sibary%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=hh25VIH8LMzqUvXGgMAC She has also appeared on "This Morning" and has provoked controversy - so have countless other people.--Penbat (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. I agree that the subject of the article is a lightweight that does not meet any of our notability guidelines. None of the 24 sources listed represents substantial coverage; they are either routine, tangential, trivial or do not meet the requirements of our sourcing policies. Even taken together, and together with the similar sources I found in my own web searches, they don't add up to much, at all. She is simply too minor a figure in the British journalistic world to merit a stand-alone article, and even less significant on a global scale. Nothing worth merging or saving. Can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 04:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2015 (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.