Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Ackerley

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Ackerley

[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)

Fails WP:BLP - largely consists of uncited claims. I removed most sources back in January because they did not assert any included claim or mention the subject (see special:diff/998999413), no changes have been made or sources added since. If uncited claims are removed as-is, the article would be largely blank, save for a single academic paper. A S U K I T E 15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. A S U K I T E 15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. A S U K I T E 15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This article may well be the most shameless, unabashed WP:AUTOBIO/WP:RESUME I've ever seen at AfD – created by an SPA and brimming with promotional garbage. The most substantial coverage I can find of this subject is from patently unreliable (see: WP:RSP) tabloids, namely The Sun (deprecated), Metro (generally unreliable), Daily Mirror (I've heard it aptly called the "'least worst' of the British tabloids"), and of course the Daily Mail (triply deprecated by RfC). This article, about a non-notable subject, is a trash fire and a blemish on the project that's overstayed its welcome by 12 too many years. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The creator of this article, OooFrankie is definitively, undoubtedly an undisclosed paid contributor. On March 17, 2009, not even a week after creating Lisa Ackerley, this editor – then known as Hygiene Audit Systems – had their username changed. They then proceeded to remove from their talk page any trace of the conversation indicating their username was inappropriate. Note, our current article on Ackerley reads: "Ackerley sold her business which she had run with Graham Murphy since 1987, Hygiene Audit Systems Ltd in 2015 but is still hands on, appearing as an expert witness from time to time giving evidence on food safety issues." TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks notable to me, I'm adding references eg https://www.rsph.org.uk/about-us/news/new-trustee-appointed-dec17.html https://www.ifh-homehygiene.org/about-ifh Piecesofuk (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – By definition, neither of these citations confer notability, as neither of them are independent of the subject. The first link is merely a brief press release about the charity hiring Ackerley as a trustee. Furthermore, the second link merely mentions Ackerley's name as a trustee but does not go into any substantial detail whatsoever as would be required to confer notability. This argument is therefore entirely erroneous as it pertains to WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:NACADEMIC. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill career info without any evidence of notability, WP:NOTCV. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2021 (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.