Deletion of Liz Wilde

Comment: There are too few reliable sources to allow writing a proper article. Since the subject has complained about improper editing of the article, it seems there are at least some BLP concerns. This article also drew COI attention since it appeared that the subject was writing most of the content. The weakness of the sources, the difficulty in meeting , the subject's BLP concerns, the neutrality problems caused by such a large contribution by the subject herself, all appear to be solved by deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Although she appears to be one of an increasing number of people who attract attention by simply being outrageous, being http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-68745193.html Drivetime DJ on a nationally syndicated slot would probably be sufficient to establish notability. However, there is a ton of |unattributable and potentially |unverifiable stuff, which may need to be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:V)

Comment: Notability is |not temporary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: Pay-per-view articles aren't really too big of a deal since they refer to newspaper articles that could be verified if necessary.  Many editors seem to think that finding several mentions of the article's subject in newspapers or magazines is sufficient to establish notabilty, it's not.   states that ''substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability'' and ''minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.''   emphasizes this with ''If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability''.  Based on the claims that she is the first and/or only female shock jock, I'm inclined to say she's notable but without reliable 3rd party, non-trivial, sources to back up this claim, it's just a claim.  I added the references that I could locate (the only ones that are there) but they are pretty trivial
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:BIO)

Comment: as notable, but '''gut with a chainsaw''' per  until some  can be dug up for some of this stuff
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:RS)