Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letitia Libman


 * 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. I'm likely going to get trouted for this, but between this being a borderline speedy (G10) and a arguable WP:SNOW delete, I'm calling this one done. I don't see any plausible way this AfD will close with any other result. My rationale for this SNOW/borderline WP:IAR is that the BLP issues in the article are of sufficient weight to not let this sit for another five days. joe deckertalk to me 16:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Letitia Libman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article on a living person is absolutely filled with WP:BLP violations, e.g. "On June 8, 2005, Dr. Libman has the dubious distinction of receiving the "Creme de la Weird" award in Chuck Shepherd's popular "News of the Weird" column". It mostly focuses on her criminal and media history. It is quite referenced, but my major concerns are the multiple BLP violations. Raymie (t • c) 00:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted to the BLP noticeboard as well. 00:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the person were notable, we could clean out the BLP violations, but as far as I can tell, she is only notable for controversy and nothing else. The article sounds like it was created by someone who has a grudge against her.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia really isn't the place for this.  Gamaliel (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a mess of BLP violations and OR per Bbb23. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - more or less an attack page. Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Heck, it's borderline whether or not this article would qualify for a WP:CSD speedy. To the extent that there's any (poorly written, buried lede) claim for notability in the article, it's that Libman was accused of using witchcraft to treat psychiatric patients in multiple lawsuits.  While the fact that the allegations were made and the suits were filed is well-documented, it appears that the cases were dismissed.  As the article is mostly about these cases, WP:UNDUE is a massive problem.  Libman doesn't seem notable for any other reason, so WP:BLP1E applies and is strong reason to delete the article.  If the UNDUE issue were resolved, the article would have no useful content. Therefore, an uncontroversial delete. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If any speedy, wouldn't WP:CSD be best? There is no neutral revision: compare to the opening revision from AfC. I'm inclined to start upgrading this to a G10 speedy. It's very bad. Raymie (t • c) 18:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.