Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilith Aquino


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lilith Aquino

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable for anything other than having once been married to Michael Aquino, previously deleted for lack of nobility. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless notability can be established. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article does assert notability. It states that she has been a high-profile member and spokesperson for the Church of Satan, appearing "on numerous television and radio programs, even being interviewed by Time magazine." Now that clearly makes her notable, and the present lack of references is ground for a maintenance request, not an AfD. __meco (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- article asserts notability, which is why it wasn't a speedy. Whether it establishes notability is another question. Simply put, if Michael Aquino isn't notable enough for an article, his ex-wife (who is much less significant even among Setians, Satanists, etc.), who is mostly notable because of his connection with him, isn't either. The maintenance requests have been on the article for almost a year. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is warped reasoning. Michael Aquino is not notable because insufficient reliable sources document his purported stature and activities. Should any such sources surface he may suddenly become notable. Lilith Aquino must be estimated for notability not based on the inability of Wikipedia editors to find reliable sources on her husband but on her own merits. If an interview with her in Time magazine exists, that is almost certainly sufficient in and of itself to establish notability. That is why I focused on this alleged fact and assert that our focus ought to be the question of whether that claim is true or not, for which an AFD is not the appropriate procedure. Unless someone has reason to suspect that this claim is false and can convincingly elaborate on that, we should tag the statement in question with fact and then, if after a suitable time period, noone comes up with a concrete reference we can remove that statement, and then the article could easily be prod'ed or AFD'd, take you pick. Also, had there been any BLP concerns which motivated a wish to have the article deleted, the unreferenced Time statement would not be enough to protect the article's existence pending a prolonged period waiting for a reference request to be fulfilled. There seems not to be any BLP concerns regarding having this article. __meco (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor any evidence of notability. Feel free to find it; it's been a year since the article was tagged. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Have you tried searching the Time website, which has archives of just about everything they have ever published, for a interview of her? Lilith Aquino, Lilith Sinclair, Patricia Sinclair, all turned up nothing. The only relevant news stories I can seem to find refer to a single incident where a suit she brought over dismissal from her job was decided against her as she was fired for being "unfriendly... not a witch". There are mentions of 'Lilith Aquino' and 'Time Magazine' on the internet.. on the sites of conspiracy theorists I'm not going to bother to look at. John Nevard (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2008 (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.