Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanne Lees (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Lees[edit]

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

Not notable in herself, only for the murder case. Should be turned into a redirect. Egg Centric 20:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is no different from the one that was tried last time round and failed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change and a grand total of four people wanted to keep it in 2008. So she wrote a book. Big deal. Egg Centric 21:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You characterise 4, sarcastically, as a "grand total". How less "grand" was the 3 who argued differently? About 25% less grand. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or about 50% more grand than this AFD so far

Egg Centric 21:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It can hardly be said to have fired the imagination of the entire Wiki-community in a way that no previous issue ever dared to. It's just you and me. Wanna catch a movie? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You choose

Egg Centric 13:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just be warned: I never kiss on the first date. I go all the way. In this case, all the way from Australia to the north of England. You had better be worth it. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Don't bother booking a return ticket. Once you've had a taste of Egg's yolk, you'll never take a look at other folk. Egg Centric 21:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there is reason for someone to look for a subject, it should be kept. Jewishprincess (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of reason to look up the crime Joanne Lees was a victim of, along with Falconio... much less of a reason to look her up in herself. Especially with the general BLP assumption of erring towards no article for (wo)men like her who are notable for one incident alone. Egg Centric 21:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be adequate coverage of this person in reliable sources: the first one I randomly clicked [1] passed this test, as did the others I looked at. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 21:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I can see the nominator's point, Lees received enormous coverage in the British media and was a household name at the time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Necrothesp and the book was notable also. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough coverage to justify inclusion in wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for all the above reasons. I forgot to state this explicitly above. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the name was very notable for a period in Australian cultural history - up there with Lindy C - plus all the arguments given above Satu Suro 09:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Anyone think I should withdraw this as nominator to save effort for everyone else? My mind isn't changed, incidentally - but at the same time it's clear where consensus is. Egg Centric 18:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No point, really, my ovoid friend. It'll obviously fail anyway, as all bad ideas do. :) Let the inevitable eventuate, while you remain resolute in your disapproval, going down fighting, in the grand old British tradition. To withdraw it in the face of certain defeat looks rather like capitulation in the face of the enemy. That would be unconscionable and reprehensible. The gun is on the dresser on your way out. Your call. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scrambled Egg Centric 17:41, 19 July 2011 (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.