Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Wilson-Foley

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Wilson-Foley

Lisa Wilson-Foley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsuccessful political candidate who otherwise isn't notable. Meatsgains(talk) 02:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "White-collar criminal" in the lead is already a red flag per BLP, and most of the sources appear to be about that. Delete John M Wolfson (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete what does it tell you when entire sections sit there empty? Trillfendi (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It tells you that the editor was on a standard West Coast USA sleep schedule and added that section (there was never more than a single empty section) when they woke up in the morning.
    Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.