Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne-Marie Minhall (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Minhall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a radio personality, referenced exclusively to her own staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer rather than any evidence of third-party reliable source coverage. As always, broadcasters aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist, but must have their work externally validated as significant by third-party sources: notable broadcasting awards, newspaper or magazine articles about her and her career, and on and so forth.
As I don't have access to databases in which I could recover archived British media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to those resources can find enough proper coverage to salvage this -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better sourcing than just her own employer's staff directory.
Note as well that the first discussion ten years ago is not definitive: radio presenters are not automatically notable just because they're on the radio, but rather she has to be a subject of coverage, in sources other than her own employer, in order to establish her significance. But the first discussion hinged entirely on "notable because she exists" rather than on any evidence that she could be brought up to a WP:GNG-passing standard of sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing found, I expected to find something if she's been there for 14 yrs, all are for her employer/from their website. Oaktree b (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I've expanded the article to include a couple of appearances as a celebrity presenter for classical music concerts, and she seems to be notable in that area. There's also a paywalled article in The Times, which from the visible snippet seems as if it might be discussing her in terms of invisibility of older women in the media, but isn't showing up in the Times Archive in the Gale service (possibly too recent: October 2014) - anyone got access to the current Times? PamD 09:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've expanded the article with bad sourcing that isn't support for notability.

Presenting orchestra shows is only a notability claim to the extent that you can support it with journalistic reportage about her presentation of orchestra shows in media; it does not go toward notability if you have to reference it to the self-published websites of the orchestras she presented for, because they aren't independent of the claim being made. Something like that requires media coverage to be done about it by journalists, not just the self-published website of the organization that hired her to do the work, before it turns into a notability claim.

Her agency profile on the self-published website of her own PR agent is also not a notability-assisting source, because again it isn't independent of her.

The only two sources here that are remotely acceptable reliable sources at all are #4 (INews) and #7 (Rhinegold) — but she isn't the subject of either of those sources, and instead is just briefly namechecked in sources whose primary subject is something else. So they would be fine for use unlike the other five, but they don't get her over WP:GNG all by themselves if they're all she's got for media coverage.

You're going to have to try harder than that. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Access to the 2014 Times article is available via Gale, and only mentions Minhall: "Within days, his permanent replacements had been put in place: Anne-Marie Minhall on weekday afternoons and Alexander Armstrong, of Pointless and "Pimm's o'clock" fame, on Saturdays." 2010 commentary titled "An age-old injustice" from The Sunday Times is on Gale and only mentions Minhall in a list: "Radio does not throw women like this on the scrapheap. On the contrary, it is where women broadcasters of Smith's age and above flourish. They include Shelagh Fogarty and Sarah Montague (both 44), Anne-Marie Minhall and Jo Whiley (both 45)..." (and 18 more names). There is also a 2016 interview with Radio Times on Gale, with a graf labeled CV that includes basic biographical and career information. She is also listed as a speculative nominee for a SONY award by the Guardian in 2007 (via Gale "So maybe this year we might see nominations for more female presenters, perhaps including Jenni Murray, Emma B, Jo Whiley, Anne-Marie Minhall, Sarah Kennedy, or Laverne herself?"). She also hosted a charity event in 2018 (via Gale), and her timeslot moved in 2013 (via Gale). I have not looked at ProQuest yet, but I think more is needed to support WP:BASIC notability because these sources are largely not offering secondary context or commentary about her and her work. Beccaynr (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Fully referenced and passes notability criteria. Rillington (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not fully referenced at all — five of the seven footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the other two just trivially mention her in the process of not being about her, so there are no sources here at all that are getting her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I added a few sources from ProQuest, including one review focused entirely on her show in The Independent, another review in The Observer focused in part on her show, and a mention with some commentary and context in The Independent about her role as a news editor at Classic FM, as well as some of the 'CV' information noted above that preceded the Radio Times interview. I think these sources help support WP:BASIC notability, particularly in combination with other sources noted in this discussion that indicate she is assumed to be familiar to readers. Beccaynr (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:BASIC per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Certainly exceeds the bare minimum for notability based on the references listed. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. ~~~~ Nwhyte (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems sufficient for an article. Artw (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources listed are all either churn, self published, or (a single) paywalled. Even if I assume good faith on the paywalled source, that is only 1 significant and independent source, which is not enough to establish notability. Rockphed (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.