- 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. Sandstein 14:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Lisa M. Axelrod (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)
A run-of-the-mill model who at the age of 50 started a PhD studies in psychology. There are plenty of sources confirming various aspects of her bio, but AFAIC well below the WP:GNG level. Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
What about the political work? She was a DNC delegate from California in 2016 and 2017, that is something most people from the USA would find noteworthy for inclusion. I think that you have a good argument for why certain aspects of the entry need to be edited, but the political work I completely disagree with you about.
(Also, no need to shame women for being 50. Everyone turns 50.)Superheidi (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- There are about 4000 delegates to the Democratic National Convention. It isn't inherently notable, and the lists of delegates aren't an in-depth source that is useful for meeting GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see any claims of meeting any WP:SNG, neither WP:ENT nor WP:NPOL are met. Most of the references don't even mention her, the exceptions being things like IMDb listings, so WP:GNG is not met either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete totally fails notability criteria. Being a political convention delegate is most definately not a sign of notability. Not even if someone was a delegate to conventions from 1832-1972 when the conventions actually had some infleuence, and the presidential nominee was not chosen until the convention. With modern conventions just being rubber-stamp rah-rah conventions, being one of the delegates there is even less a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Are the men on Wikipedia always this angry when they delete women's pages? Your opinions about modern political relevance is not relevant at all to the rest of the world. If you have a grievance it should be based in objective reality, not your anger towards the DNC. Superheidi (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete This one looks like a pretty clear delete to me on WP:GNG. Definiitely fails any political notability test. If someone wants to argue she passes WP:ENT I might support that argument. Someone should also look into AfDing Max M. Axelrod for similar reasons. SportingFlyer talk 04:17, 28 May 2018 (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.