Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisette Rene Sacks

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. Secret ^account 04:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisette Rene Sacks

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

Nominating for deletion on behalf of subject, per ticket:2013070810013541. Reason given is interference with current professional activities. Notability seems to be minimal. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm nervous of people asking to be removed from wikipedia for vague commercial reasons, but in this case it's a clear delete. Apart from an interview with a local newspaper, none of the sources mention her or vertify the claimed facts. I couldn't even find confirmation of the 2009 Addy awards that the article mentions on the AAF website. GDallimore (Talk) 12:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mostly in line with GDallimore. We generally don't allow subjects to "opt out" of Wikipedia unless they are only marginally notable. This subject falls into that category, in my view, and so deleting the biography is justified. You might almost have a tough time making a case for notability if this were at AFD in any other context but we don't seem to have people leaping out of the shadows to make such a case. Stalwart111 07:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this was brought to AfD purely on grounds of notability, I don't think it would stand a chance. Lack of reliable sources, failing WP:BIO. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2013 (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.