Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlo Greene

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlo Greene[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. As a television anchor for a local Anchorage TV station she was more significant the an average person before the one event (quitting on air), but not sufficiently so to rate a separate article. VQuakr (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literally only famous for one event and four words she said; the rest of her career (especially if the referendum she's campaigning for is defeated) is no better than any other broadcast professional. Nate • (chatter) 03:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Initially I was going to argue that this should redirect to KTVA#News_operation and if this is ultimately deleted, I'd recommend that this redirect to that section with history. What made me change my mind, albeit reluctantly, is that High Times is going to give her one of their awards on the 16th of this month. They're pretty influential when it comes to marijuana advocacy and counterculture, so an award from them is no small shakes- especially since they apparently don't give out many of them. This, along with the coverage, is just enough to where I'd argue a weak, shaky keep. But again, I wouldn't be adverse to this redirecting to the KTVA article as long as we leave the article history intact for if/when she gains more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Would create an WP:UNDUE issue at KTVA#News_operation. ~KvnG 16:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: which sources cover the subject beyond the context of the single event of her resignation? VQuakr (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: I think is is clear that point 3 of WP:BLP1E is not met here. All three must be met for this exclusion to apply. The extent of coverage indicates the event was notable and she was central to the event. ~KvnG 21:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You think that per point 3, the event of her quitting meets WP:NEVENT? VQuakr (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Definitely significant non-routine coverage with adequate scope. You may argue that it is too soon to know for sure whether coverage persists over time but current indications are that there's resonance here. ~KvnG 05:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What did it for me was the High Times Award and now she's apparently been named by Elle as one of the most powerful women in the pot industry. It's not the most solid keep for me even with the Elle post, but I think that it just barely squeaks out of BLP1E since she's been receiving various awards and recognition for her pot activism and the way she quit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm of two minds on this one. This started out as nothing more than another human interest story that would disappear in a few weeks -- WP:TOOSOON at best. Now, there's a decent chance that major magazine coverage has pushed her into the notable category. I'm inclined to leave the article in Wikipedia. If it turns out I'm wrong, I can always be trouted in another AfD in six months or so. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I guess I agree with Traveling Man above. We can always come back in a month or two. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2014 (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.