Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Hammer

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Hammer[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP that was created too long ago for a BLP PROD. Though she has some notable credits/connections, I'm not seeing enough to pass WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 22:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but weak delete, could not find reliable sources, although what I have trouble explaining is why this person has a rather high pageview count, averaging 50 pageviews/day. So what is going on here? Not much comes up after about 8 SERP pages. Maybe she is borderline notable in a somewhat non-mainstream area (Goth etc) so sources are not showing up? Not sure what to make of this, but I could change my vote with new information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - purely for consistency's sake this must be deleted, but ... can we save it? Bearian (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to rescue it but my guess it will be fruitless. I've done Heymann-type revamps on articles posed for deletion (for notable subjects) only to see the revamps reverted, like on Laura Mersini-Houghton, back to a problematic article, so I am not so sure it would be worth it to try to improve an article on a (possibly?) marginal subject?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Speaking as the only other delete !vote at the moment, I can tell you I would have no reason or inclination personally to revert improvements if you chose to spend your time doing so. I did search for sources myself, but if you can find some good stuff I couldn't for whatever reason I'm also not opposed to withdrawing it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Rhododendrites:, your open-mindedness is appreciated; what I am saying is that I could spend a half hour or hour trying to fix up this article on Lisa Hammer, and when done, we would all look at the revamp, and all still vote delete. But I am not sure. If an article has a chance, I like to revamp it but it is guesswork and I am trying to use my time productively.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mors Syphilitica. I'll also venture an Ignore All Rules keep. This is the sort of person that I would expect a comprehensive encyclopedia to cover. But as an underground film maker, she seems to have escaped notice in the more usual places. At the very least, we should be able to merge some of this article with the band page. The band page is in sad shape, but could be referenced. I found [1], and [2] about the band. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain, changing vote from Delete (above) to Uncertain, I added 5 references but I am still on the fence on this one. I think part of the problem is that she has done many things (actress, director, vocalist, etc) and much of this work is in niche territory, so it is hard for us Wikipedians who don't know the goth/horror world to know what the best sources are? If the article gets deleted, and anybody wants it back (revamped?) write something on my talk page and we could try refloating it.
Weak keep, changing from looking for more references (added to the article); still, not sure about the overall quality of the references, in total, will go with what the closing admin decides. What's interesting still is the high pageview count, averaging 50 pageviews/day (plucked from my struck-out comment). Definitely an interesting person. Less sure about overall notability. If the article stays here in Wikipedia, I'll try to revamp it when I get time, but I don't want to work on something that will meet the ax.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2014 (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.