Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Chadwick (radio)

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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Chadwick (radio)

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

I see a run of the mill business executive who might possibly be famous for 15 minutes WP:BLP1E, and not a great deal else. Well, nothing else. Fiddle Faddle 13:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 17 July 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, czar ♔ 15:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the number of seemingly endless Pacifica executives who tried and as usual, failed to execute duties to manage Pacifica; as usual with a lot of the Pacifica and WBAI articles, no real easy way to find notability or clarity on her. Nate • (chatter) 22:59, 24 July 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 06:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That an executive is perceived as being "run of the mill" or one of "seemingly endless Pacifica executives" are not valid reasons for deletion; rather, what counts is the general notability guideline which says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. There is substantial coverage of Chadwick here and here and here and here in this book and in here in this other book and here which easily meets the GNG guideline. The current article has some issues but these can be improved.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:46, 9 August 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.