Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyndsay Petruny

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. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndsay Petruny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is a declared paid article, for a relatively non-notable announcer. She paid for it herself, according to the declaration of COI. I fully understand why someone in this field might think a WP article would help their career, but that's not what we're here for. And the recognitions section does not seem to be encyclopedic content, DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Being a COI/declared paid article is not a valid reason for deletion; I agree that WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON and such seem to be questionable at best here, but the nomination's phrasing makes it sound like the main reason for the nomination is the COI. We absolutely shouldn't make it seem like we're punishing declared-paid-editors for having followed Wikipedia policy on disclosing paid editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{U| The Bushranger}}, I do not automatically nominate every paid article for deletion. What I do, is look at as many as I can, and look with a degree of skepticism. The need for that skepticism is the very reason for requiring the notice. I think it appropriate to repeat that information here, in those cases where I do nominate. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a low level journalist no where close to meeting our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep DGG: Where did you see the COI posted? I checked the Talk page and userpage of the creator and didn't see it. The creator has been around since 2008 and page made in 2013. Aged editors are less likely to be paid editor. But regardless, like the other editor said whether its paid editor or not, the page must not be automatically declined and should be reviewed for notability and if need be it can be improved. You can use decline reason if it sounds like an "advertisement." However, IMO she meets WP:ENTERTAINER with having been host of several TV shows, so it should be kept, but improved if needed.Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expertwikiguy, I'm surprised you missed it: The editor has indeed been here for a number of years, and according to their user page [[1]] they have been a declared paid editor since 2011. This particular article is in the section for 2013. (I will say, that the editor is reasonably competent, has done some unpaid work also. As always, the unpaid volunteer non-coi work is of a higher quality, especially because in most cases those who thoughtit necessary to pay for the articles had rather borderline notability and a lack of independent sourcing). They have tried to deflect scrutiny by making many of the paid articles in numbered sandboxes, which they have apparently used for a number of different articles--I think they may also be blanking and moving articles to repurpose them. This is why we need to absolutely require that all paid editing go through Draft space. They are also meeting the WMF terms of use, which considers that marking an article paid on the user page is sufficient (and those accommodates the usages of some WPs which are much more hospitable to paid work than enWP), , but are ignoring the current enWP WP:PAID requirements to declare it at the articles also.(and some of the article seem full or partial rather competent translations from those more hospitable WPs. The translation is not always be indicated, though I have not traced them all. Various of their articles have been deleted from time to time, a few taken to AfD and kept, but the overall pattern does not seem to have been noticed. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per nom. Her only claim to fame is that she's a female sports anchor, which is still unusual in the field of football. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: The article needs to be trimmed of trivia (i.e., the whole Recognitions section) but the subject arguably passes WP:ENTERTAINER: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Multiple and notable should be clear from the article; "significant roles" is more debatable but I think just barely passes. The 2004 Chicago/Midwest Emmy nominations also likely help (5 nomination programs she produced/executive produced, 1 nomination for her specifically): https://chicagoemmyonline.org/files/2014/09/2014-Emmy-Master-LIst.pdf Gnomingstuff (talk)
• Delete Seems run of the mill, not enough to warrant an article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources seem to past muster and a quick search shows various sources talking about her sports anchor career. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:30, 18 February 2021 (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.