Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lora Flattum


 * 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. clear consensus after relsiting  DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Lora Flattum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable pageant winner of Miss Virginia. Outside of winning the event, I cannot find any other information that would make her meet WP:GNG RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:1E. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Neutral. I've just beefed up the article to describe her accomplishments in elder care law and science research. She prob wouldn't meet GNG on any one of these things alone but I think the sum qualifies. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my vote as I see Lemongirl's point about inadequacy of sources for notability, and I haven't found more sources to add. I'm going to leave my opinion as neutral though, as candidly I don't especially see what's gained in deleting: I think there are enough sources for a verifiable article and in aggregate, especially with founding the UVA clinic on elder law, I continue to think there's reason to think this person is worthy of notice, but, I'm willing to defer to community consensus on how we assess the notability question. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC) *Keep As per Innisfree987 and the added sources this article subject meets WP:GNG and should be retained. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 22:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC) banned sockHappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sorry, but I do not see how GNG is met. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. I searched myself and also looked at the sources added to the article.
 * Not an independent source, it is a routine profile on a website of the foundation she works at.
 * Not an independent source. This is a journal, containing a research paper authored by here. This is not a secondary source.
 * , ,, Local sources (limited to 2 newspapers) which cover the subject in context of the beauty pageant.
 * Sub-national beauty pageant winners are not considered automatically notable. Local sources are not used for proving GNG. I do not see any evidence that the subject passes GNG and in addition, over here it seems like a case of WP:BLP1E. I would be glad if someone can actually show me verifiable evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as still nothing actually suggestive of the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  22:48, 12 July 2016 (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.