Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Loo

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 redirect‎ to List of first women lawyers and judges in Arizona#State Bar of Arizona. Star Mississippi 20:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Loo

[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)

Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. WP:BEFORE check comes up empty regarding secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing found is press releases and university PR, nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The line of reasoning is WP:BIO because of the awards and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2023 Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Starlighsky, and the blatant POV of the nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see nothing to indicate notability here. Being head of a state bar association does not seem to constitute a significant achievement in real terms; lots of other women have held the equivalent role. Deb (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see which notability guideline this individual could meet? How do her achievements meet ANYBIO? Criteria are just not met, and there is insufficient secondary coverage to verify the awards beyond primary sources. She does not have a sufficient publishing score to justify inclusion on WP:ACADEMIC either. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of first women lawyers and judges in Arizona where she is listed. Should sufficient sources become available in the future then an article for her could be created. Lamona (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: passing coverage exists here [1] [2], I'm not sure if there is secondary independent coverage after looking at the sources in the article and my own search. It looks like she doesn't have notable books, publications, or legal decisions--other avenues for notability may be possible. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of first women lawyers and judges in Arizona per Lamona.-KH-1 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lamona. Doesn't seem to be quite enough to work with here. Policy-based rationale follows.
Rule: although not mentioned above, the applicable criterion appears to be WP:NBASIC, which states People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. (I am tempted to make an argument that WP:ACADEMIC applies because Arizona law, like the law of any US state, is a distinct field of scholarly work and inquiry, but I'll save my breath.) WP:DGFA reminds us when in doubt, don't delete, and WP:PRESERVE highlights the importance of keeping content within the positive-sum wiki process whenever possible.
Sources: I am not quite persuaded by the other participants' negative view of the sources, for example [3] seems to have a nontrivial amount of secondary content despite also containing interview excerpts, and is from 15 years before Loo became head of the Arizona Bar Association so would appear to be independent. Nonetheless I don't really see a critical mass of coverage here.
Conclusion: Suitable for redirection. -- Visviva (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Visviva, I'm not sure that the Arizona Bar Association magazine is truly independent - she's a member of the bar, and the magazine promotes the bar and its members. I see that is a whole magazine page - I'd probably rate it as partial source. I haven't seen any guidance for professional organs vis-a-vis the members of the profession so this is my gut feeling. If there is some, please pass it on. Lamona (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be greatly shocked to find that there are sharp divisions on this topic, much as for local news. But in my experience bar journals are typically edited to a very high standard and often employ professional journalists. Even member-written articles are typically peer reviewed (PDF), which is notably a level of rigor that very few US-based law reviews accomplish. It's true that a bar journal is unlikely to run a negative profile of a member (or even a non-member), but I'd be quite surprised to find that any statements in that profile hadn't been carefully reviewed and fact-checked before publication. I would accordingly argue that bar journal articles generally meet the lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved requirement suggested by the Wikipedia:Independent sources essay. -- Visviva (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems to be the best approach to this. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (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.