Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Lecron

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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Lecron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. While this is backed up by reliable sources, this person is only notable for a single event. CoolSkittle (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:BLP1E. Given the facts as described in the article, many British folks could be similarly accused in the run up to Guy Fawkes Night. Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:BLP1E. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a significant plan to commit mass murder.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly a significant plan. So far it's just an arrest, not a conviction. Cabayi (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - This woman is accused, not yet convicted. Per WP:BLP "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured"

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — obvious violations against BLP policy. The one thing you could try to argue she is notable for, she is only suspected of. Given that there will be a trial, assuming guilt at this stage also violates NPOV.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator and everyone else. BURLEY-XXII 19:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burley22 (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Delete I originally nominated under the same pretext, the delete tag I placed was removed. Comatmebro (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. The bombing plot itself might well pass per WP:RAPID (very wide burst of coverage - but currently limited to one burst - recent event) - however given that the article is on the BLP and not on the plot, calling RAPID is not appropriate in my eyes. The individual quite possibly will be notable in the future (i.e. my crystal ball sees more coverage here), given the peculiar nature of this case, however that hasn't happened yet. Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2018 (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.