Jump to content

Talk:Leona Graham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"dubious notability"

[edit]

Leona Graham has been a national radio presenter in the UK for many years now. Her voice is well-known in the UK from both her work as a radio presenter as well as her voice-overs. She is also a 2010 Sony Radio Academy Award winner.

I am in the process of completely re-writing this article. Please do not request its deletion meanwhile. by M.wernicke (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see it was edited, but there's still a lack of 3rd party sources. A number of promotional claims are self-sourced. As an example: "Leona has been the principal voice for BBC Radio One, BBC 5 LIVE, 95.8 Capital FM, The BOX, E4, Virgin Radio and Absolute Radio" is a pretty big claim, with no 3rd party backing it up. If third-party cites aren't added, the article will need to be nominated for deletion. --Rob (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a completely rewritten article. My first one by the way. Would you please explain to me the difference between this article and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annabel_Port for example? What am I missing? If I remove the adjective "principal" will it make a difference? I would appreciate some thoughts from you, to help me understand.M.wernicke (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use Annabel Port as an example, as it has it's own problems. What you need are sources that are independent of the subject. So, you can't just use Leona Graham herself as a source. You can't just use Absolute Radio as a source. The reason is they have a conflict of interest. So, for example an article in the Guardian, or Independent, some other media outlet would be a legitimate source. It would even be ok to have a *journalistic* work produced by a media outlet she worked with (like the BBC), as long as we could trust the writer is working independently and not being promotional. But, the sources linked in this article are just promotional. We want sources that do real fact checking, rather than just relaying what the subject says about themself. --Rob (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rob, for your explanation. However, given what you've just explained, almost all articles in the Absolute Radio stack would have to be nominated for deletion immediately. It is a given fact that, unfortunately, radio DJs don't usually get so much attention that a newspaper decides to publish their biography. And voiceover artists are rarely named by the organizations they work for. You will simply not find a BBC article about one of their voiceover people. I have attempted to put in as many sources as are available, including a print source. What else could I possibly do? And why does this article require a sources tag whereas most other articles in the same stack, which as you say are bad examples as well, do not get one? M.wernicke (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It would even be ok to have a *journalistic* work produced by a media outlet she worked with (like the BBC), as long as we could trust the writer is working independently and not being promotional." -- This should be the case with One Golden Square, the blog by the people who manage Absolute Radio. The blog post there is an original piece of journalistic work and outlines the whole history of Virgin Radio. The same blog post is, apparently, acceptable here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_radio --- Are you sure Rob, that you have read a single link and actually made sure that none of these sources complies with the guidelines? M.wernicke (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that http://www.rhubarbvoices.co.uk/artist.php?id=153 contains actual airchecks of her work as a voiceover artist. Naturally, the companies she works for are not interested in putting up an article promoting her as the voice. However, these air checks are a verifiable source and should be considered as evidence for her work as a voiceover artist. M.wernicke (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this page, it is informative — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Holmes (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Leona Graham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leona_Graham&oldid=1202415400"