Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiona Lazareff (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Lazareff

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP/N. Sources are about non-notable failed organisations which the subject has started, but not about the subject themselves. The page reads like a CV with adverts for various schemes sprinkled throughout. Furthermore, a very similar page existed under the name Fiona Scott-Lazareff but was deleted for the above reasons. It appears the creator made the page at Fiona Lazareff to circumvent the salt. GDX420 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GDX420 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GDX420 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GDX420 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2019-11 no consensus

Logs: 2019-07 ✍️ create

Delete. I don't see any source that discusses her in-depth, some mentions in passing only. That's not enough for NBIO. Ps. Three explicit sources were discussed in prior AfD: 1) [1] - low quality as it is mostly a WP:INTERVIEW 2) [2] ditto and 3) [3] - I can't access it. Still, what I see is that neither of them is about her life, at best, about aspects of it, seemingly the same so WP:ONEEVENT. Please show me one article that is a proper biography of her? Or otherwise how she meets NBIO (awards, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dismissing reliable independent sources such as The Times and Legal Futures FOARP highlighted in a recent AfD solely on the basis of "interview" is short-sighted. The person named is the subject of two extensive articles in the newspaper of record for the United Kingdom and that alone is enough to qualify under WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLP1E. She seems to have only gotten coverage over a brief one-week period when she called for courts to be made easier to access. Given that both sources are mostly interviews, I am not sure whether they provide significant coverage in any case. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:BLP1E very obviously does not apply in this case as there are clearly two events (the litigant-in-person advocacy in late 2018, the missing persons advocacy in early 2017) separated by more than a year. These are not interviews but coverage of her campaigns. Obviously a pass for WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is articles in the Telegraph, Times, Metro, Express, Daily Mail, Guardian, Mirror, Scotsman, Glasgow Herald, The Standard. It's only one story. I really don't see a lot of life in the article, certainly it could be reuter's story that has been shared. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on the similar reasons given by scope_creep. - Hatchens (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources don't add up to GNG imo. b uidhe 08:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yet another foolish effort to delete a biography of someone who has done noteworthy work but has an unremarkable personal life. Our goal is not simply to cover the Kardashians of the planet. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2020 (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.