Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Hook


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  23:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Lisa Hook

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

Pretty obviously a COI creation, most recently edited by a now-blocked paid user, but even before that latest editor this was already just a resume, padded with board memberships and whatnot (all with primary sources). The subject worked in technology, sure, and had a high position, but nothing in here suggests inherent notability, and there are mentions in only two or three newspaper articles, which aren't even about the subject (look how she's mentioned only once in this). Drmies (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete With the lack of reporting or description of the subject from reliable secondary sources (to the best of my research), this article, at this point, is a glorified LinkedIn page. Since this article doesn't meet this most basic principle of the Wikipedia notability guidelines, then there's no reason to keep this page at this moment in time.
 * Panian513 01:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete I would have to agree with Panian513 that there are no secondary sources and does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Untamed1910 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Technology,  and Pennsylvania.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable per se by position and there is no other assertion of notability. This article looks like it was created and nursed by several single-purpose accounts in its early days. May be a vanity page. Not a controversial deletion. 128.252.172.12 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, no secondary sources, and does not meet any other notability guidelines. What else is there to say?
 * User:Let'srun 18:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom -- Devoke  water  20:24, 3 July 2023 (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.