Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Specht


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ——  SN  54129  15:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Lisa Specht

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unfortunately, I don't think Ms. Specht is encyclopaedia-notable. The article's already been deleted once for being overly promotional, and the current state of the sources in the article are from the Los Angeles business journal, a couple WP:MILL pieces about her chairing the LA Music Center (it also seems she's no longer in charge of it, but check out which is a classic example of a local business/board announcement, and only dedicates two grafs to her out of the five in the article), and an article on her TV show from the early 1990s. I also found, which isn't in the article, so that makes two articles about her television show, and an article from the Indianapolis Star from 29 January 1991 which called the television show a "trash derby" (and doesn't talk about her at all apart from mentioning she's a host.) It just seems as if she's a decent but WP:MILL attorney who was in the press a couple times over the course of her career, and that WP:GNG isn't quite met. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Her main ref that would qualify as SIGCOV is from her entry in the LA500 list of a small LA newspaper called the Los Angeles Business Journal; these types of publications often give favourable coverage to advertisers, such as her law firm.  Her BIO-type ref from the Music Centre is likely from herself, and thus unlikely to be suitable as an RS for Wikipedia. Has been speedily deleted twice as promotional, and looks created by someone with a COI. Britishfinance (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Noting the improved RS from from the LA Times (a WP:RS/P), and particularly this one which is getting closer to a proper dedicated article on her from a quality RS (a core part of any BLP imho): |Can You Be Bumped? Is the Cleaner Coming Clean? Ask Lisa Specht. Still a little wary that her WP BLP would become the central "plank" of her notability, which I use as a WP:COMMONSENSE test for BLPs (e.g. it should be the other way around). It's borderline territory. Britishfinance (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: and consider blocking the undisclosed WP:PAID editing that this article's main editor is doing for several apparently WP:NN clients seeking a better personal brand. Toddst1 (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I had to beat the bushes; LA sources are more often search-protected than NY ones, and the unattributed birthdate for her on one site is in 1945, so much may be too early to have been digitized. But I found one article about her that covered her early life and the start of her TV career, and that led to discovering she ran for city attorney; the news from that time is largely offline, but Los Angeles magazine filled in the story of the campaign in an article on her opponent, and the LA Times endorsement is online. So that's three things in her career that have attracted coverage, and a proper article about her to set beside the business journal. I also found obituaries of her husband, so there's a Personal life section too, now. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you looking deeply into the sourcing. Which article covered her early life and TV career? I'd like to have a look at it. Also, in terms of at least the political element, we almost never keep articles on people who have run for office and failed, so I don't think we can call her notable just because she received a local endorsement. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * LA Times, June 15, 1991; after finding that and recasting the article I edit conflicted with making another cleanup edit or two before coming here. The LA magazine article also has a paragraph or two on the race, pointing out how strong the support was for her. Part of what tipped me toward keep is that she's evidently been in the public eye for decades, for more than one thing. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Promotional is never a reason to AfD an article. It is a reason to cleanup. The WP:BEFORE done by Yngvadottir has found reliable sources exist. And the article can be improved with the LA times endorsement, the business jounal, and obituary of her husband. Wm335td (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete promotion is a standard reason to delete articles. If an article was written with promotional intent, there is no evidence the person is actually notable outside of this promotional intent, and no reason to keep the article. We have far too many articles on living people and far too few editors dedicated to building quality to let junk articles stand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY thanks to Yngvadottir's work. It doesn't really matter if the article was written with promotional intent, if that content can be cleaned up. If it can (and has), there is no policy based reason to delete from that angle. As has been stated above, multiple news sources have covered her various activities over several decades, and that does suggest she is a suitable encyclopedia subject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:28, 3 November 2019 (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.