Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Suhay (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 delete. – Joe (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Suhay

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Lisa Suhay
• Articles for deletion/Lisa Suhay (2nd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Lisa Suhay (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)

Although this was kept at AfD in 2006, I believe the subject does not fit our tighter modern criteria for notability. I did a fairly thorough search for sources about Suhay (rather than by her), and the best I came up with was a local paper reporting that she had been hired as social media coordinator and one review of one of her books on CNN from 2000. As far as I can see there's been nothing of impact since.

Per WP:NAUTHOR, simply being published is not enough for a claim of notability; per point 3, a person must be the primary subject of a work discussing their body of work, or per point 4 it has to have attracted significant critical attention (ie more than one review). I can find no evidence to confirm either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete back in 2006 if you could be shown to have actually published a book your article was likely to be kept. Today we realize that suvh criteria lead to such horribly written articles as this one lacking substantive prose text and focusing on trivia of no importance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment, according to WorldCat, some of her books are held by a few libraries to 50 and 70 libraries, not bad considering the dearth of book reviews available online a gsearch yielded one here and another here, but more is needed, so a delete from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2018 (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.