Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorna Breen

If anyone feels a Need to delete Lorna Breen article, i strongly disagree, please No deletion

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. Consensus that notability is met by GNG. Discussions on renaming can be held on the Talk Page. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Breen[edit]

[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)

I raise this article for consideration with great trepidation, considering the circumstances that led to Dr. Breen's death. Unfortunately, I am not finding evidence to warrant the inclusion of this article based on Dr. Breen's career achievements. I do not believe this meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO standards. I raise the subject strictly as an academic consideration and will gladly withdraw the nomination if early consensus shows my judgment was in error. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's two NYT refs, one Washington Post, and one Guardian ... what's the problem? This meets GNG. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in major reliable sources all over the US, UK and many other countries including France and Italy. This should be covered somewhere and there's easily enough coverage to create a decent article from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Death of Lorna Breen The sources are about Breen committing suicide which is WP:BLP1E. There is probably enough coverage on her death for an article. Breen fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage about her. Lots of people have their deaths in the news but we don't create articles on them. Wikipedia isn't a memorial. Dougal18 (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capt. Milokan, If you're open to keeping this article by a different name, then your concern re: notability is moot and this discussion should be closed, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well sourced and notable. Keep at present name. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm leaning delete on this one. Seems like a WP:BLP1E. Just reading her article, my subjective impression is that she wasn't particularly notable. Just a doctor that committed suicide. From a WP:NACADEMIC perspective, I tried to google her h-index, not seeing anything on Google Scholar or ResearchGate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the closer of this debate will keep in mind that WP:N is either-or with respect to the GNG and a SNG like NACADEMIC. In other words, a valid claim of GNG notability renders consideration of NACADEMIC moot. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to badger. I mention NACADEMIC as an additional way to qualify this person, not as a way to disqualify them. If they had a high h-index, I would have been arguing for their inclusion, despite BLP1E/BIO1E concerns. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what Bri said Mujinga (talk) 08:55, 9 April 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.