Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Whitburn: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:52, 6 May 2009

Sarah Whitburn

Not notable - "Sarah Whitburn" lawyer produces 16 google hits and none, other than this page, that appear to be about this person Smartse (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Whitburn. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I worked with the creator to improve the page, but have no opinion on the notability Stuartyeates (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I cannot find evidence that this has been met. Of course WP:BIO is a guideline, but I do not believe Sarah Whitburn warrants an exception (meant as no slur); the article says she "has advised the New Zealand Government on the amendments to the Financial Reporting Act 1993", but I cannot tell if her level of advisement was great to the extent that it was notable. Plus, the article also says "She has been involved in a number of significant international transactions", but the websites cited to me don't suggest they were significant enough nor was her involvement significant enough to make her notable. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This fails WP:BIO and positively reeks of WP:VSCA. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability - no substantial coverage in independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 *'''Delete''' [[WP:BIO]] says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."  I cannot find evidence that this has been met.  Of course WP:BIO is a guideline, but I do not believe Sarah Whitburn warrants an exception (meant as no slur); the article says she "has advised the New Zealand Government on the amendments to the Financial Reporting Act 1993", but I cannot tell if her level of advisement was great to the extent that it was notable.  Plus, the article also says "She has been involved in a number of significant international transactions", but the websites cited to me don't suggest they were significant enough nor was her involvement significant enough to make her notable.  [[User:AdmiralKolchak|AdmiralKolchak]] ([[User talk:AdmiralKolchak|talk]]) 16:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''. This fails [[WP:BIO]] and positively reeks of [[WP:VSCA]]. [[User:Eddie.willers|Eddie.willers]] ([[User talk:Eddie.willers|talk]]) 19:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''.  Fails notability - no substantial coverage in independent sources. [[User:Dawn Bard|Dawn Bard]] ([[User talk:Dawn Bard|talk]]) 20:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)