Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Jane Phillips

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. Davewild (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Jane Phillips

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

Non-notable biography about a criminal of little to no interest, per WP:PERP. No coverage other than contemporary news accounts. Legitimus (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:PERP. The subject of this article is not notable. Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable by doing a simple google search. A subject clearly reported about by multiple independent news media, the article itself is not up to shape. But again, AfD should not be used as a clean-up service. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a google search is not enough to satisfy the requirements of notability for a biographical article, per policy. WP:PERP states that there must be "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." The last dated source on this person was April 2006 reporting on her conviction, which counts as "contemporaneous news coverage." There has been no reliable secondary sources since that time.Legitimus (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Minor crime that shows no signs of WP:PERSISTENCE. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of WP:PERSISTENCE. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable criminal; no enduring notability. Quis separabit? 02:59, 25 May 2015 (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.