Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Whitburn

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. One (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Delete. Fails notability - no substantial coverage in independent sources. Only clients's contracting or law firm's employing Sarah Whitburn have pages on her to cite her work. Her page should be pulled down until more external links can be provided to evidence notability - then a publisher can produce/amend this information on her. If we kept Sarah Whitburn's page up we could create a precedent for having a few hundred associate level New Zealand's solicitors all on Wikipedia. Lambert611 (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 20:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N for starters. Advising the government is interesting but not that interesting. We don't (and shouldn't) have an article for every lawyer who has been involved in advising a national government. If she had an official role with the govt, and had a major, verifiable role in a piece of legislation or a case of real significance, I would consider changing my opinion. And, by significance I mean something on the scale of the Human Rights Act 1998 or Police and Criminal Evidence Act 198412:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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.