Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Greer


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Lisa Greer

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Single effective reference. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO.  scope_creep Talk  20:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Piece doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Lisa Greer is not notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. 747pilot (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I have added in details about her work. In 2020 book has been reviewed by two publications (Stanford Social Innovation Review) and Alliance magazine; she won an award in 2017 which led to an article in a local publication on her and her work; and she has spoken in multiple articles about philanthropy during the COVID-19 pandemic. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I don't see sources with depth about her that are also independent. There is the lengthy piece about her lawn in Beverly Hills, but that doesn't lend to notability. However, she has been honored for her work and clearly has had an impact in her area of philanthropy. It looks like the article has potential but doesn't exhibit it well. Lamona (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep - A *really* weak keep - she has published a book (with just a few reviews) and is on some committees, but the RS is really weak here. Seems to have made some contribution to the charity field.This is very borderline for me, and I may change my vote if other editors come up with good arguments. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Again, doesn't seem to warrant deletion, and it does have a few things going for it, everything seems to be sourced for instance. The lack of citations to major publications is the main issue, and this is really borderline GNG material. Nevertheless, I don't know that this needs to be deleted, if it was, it might be under TOOSOON though, as it seems likely that we will see more if her in the future. As an observation, I think I smell a "No consensus" closure on the way. Mako001 (C) (T)  11:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Being sourced doesn't warrant notability. They are not connected in any way. Only the reference count and there is nothing here, apart from the book review which may be important. I'll check the references today.   scope_creep Talk  11:41, 7 February 2022 (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.