Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa McVey

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. Sandstein 14:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa McVey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a crime victim that does not pass WP:CRIME and I don’t think even a redirect to Bobby Joe Long is necessary. Mccapra (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I would argue the subject is notable for more than just the crime. She is also a sheriff's deputy, has written a book, and is the subject of a Netflix film. While a lot of that does stem originally from the crime, I think it seems to be separate enough to provide another basis for judging notability. Also, not that page views are an accurate measure of notability, but the article has been viewed over 10k times in the past month (likely coming from the film's article). Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 03:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role Melissa Highton (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete this article. These victims are lost souls and this page helps them be remembered. They don’t want to be forgotten. They want to be remembered. Let them live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:F900:D450:D58D:C92D:EB8C:C0E0 (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved comment) Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Also, McVey is still alive. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 17:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Victims details are normally on the criminals page. If this is allowed to be kept, whilst lots of other pages are deleted for no real reason then this site is as big of a joke as I tell people it is. Someone says that page views have anything to do with notability. THIS IS NOT TRUE or a reason to keep the page. The film about her is quite new to Netflix right now, the figures will plummet in six months. Someone says being a sheriffs deputy and writing a book (about the crime I imagine) makes someone notable. These do NOT make a person notable. Sirhissofloxley (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists. Also, I very specifically said not that page views are an accurate measure of notability in reference to the page views – I simply mentioned it to supplement that people seem to be at least somewhat interested in the subject. Plus, her occupation and her book don't inherently make her notable, but I believe the coverage of those topics does. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 18:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This delete !vote does not seem to be based in policy. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bsoyka. Sokuya (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.52.64 (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved comment) This isn't a vote. Please provide an actual reason to keep the article. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 12:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG Lirazelf (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG from plurality of reliable secondary sources. Crime one reason to have Lisa McVey covered on Wikipedia, but coverage of her work since makes the case for inclusion as an independent page.Stinglehammer (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG; and per Melissa Highton. (The suggestion that if not kept a redirect would be unnecessary is made without justification and is simply wrong.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The historic significance is confirmed as it's No. 1 in the UK on Netflix right now and even tabloids are covering it. RichardHMorris (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(This article is about the person, not the film.) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 20:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominating statement makes reference to WP:CRIME, part of the notability guideline, asserting that McVey does not pass those criteria. The relevant part states The victim ... had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. As indicated in the article, McVey's evidence led to the capture of the serial killer, which qualifies as a large role. As for it being a well-documented historic event, that there has been a documentary series about it means that it quite evident. It looks to me that McVey meets the WP:CRIME criteria and is therefore notable. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2021 (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 talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.