Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Michelle Lambert

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Michelle Lambert[edit]

Article is about a murderer who in themselves is not notable, even if the murder itself may be (although I would argue not). More importantly, there are no reliable sources in the article (the two provided seem to be blog-type self-published sources) raising BLP concerns. CIreland 18:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be retained, cleaned up and expanded. According to Judge Dalzell, this case concerns one of the most heinous instances of police misconduct he had encountered in his long and distinguished career on the bench. And, subsequent to his ruling, it has shown the cynical corruption of the Pennsylvania courts even more clearly than the various Justices accusing each other of attempted murder. A simple examination of the facts of this case shows that an innocent young woman has been incarcerated for over fifteen years while the actual murderer was set free. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported extensively on this case, but their archives are in jeopardy due to financial uncertainties. Nevertheless, this is one of the best references, especially since interested parties have disseminated a lot of disinformation. Comment left by Tedwray

In the future, be sure to sign your posts with ~~~~

Keep Notability based mainly on TV movie and mention in 20/20. Corpx 19:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as judging by the comment left on the talk page, this article may have been created for the purposes of POV pushing. --Nonstopdrivel 20:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a well known habeas corpus case and could legitimately be the subject of an article, but there are obvious issues with the current version. Newyorkbrad 20:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a major case over several years. The obvious question is BLP with respect to the subject; along her conviction stands, she claims innocence. However, it is apparent from the story that she and her supporters want the publicity, and the story has been on major news media. Access to Inquirer news stories is a long-standing problem, known problem , but there are paper and microfilm files (I am aware of it from having worked in a library in the area). The other living people mentioned by name were also convicted or are public figures). What is needed is more specific source from the references provided--there are probably more. Like most such articles, it is not an example of the highest standard of editing. Some murders are notable, and this is the proof.

In our zeal to remove non-notable news stories, we should not remove notable ones. Part of the opposition to removing articles on less well-known crimes was that the tendency to delete them would spread. The people who support deleting such articles should be anxious to keep this, to show that they understand the difference. Some potentially good projects have failed when they have over-reached. DGG 23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I simply must reject your slippery-slope argument outright. Should we keep all articles on non-notable subjects lest we delete some notables? Each article must stand on its own merits. --Evb-wiki 16:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG, you present a cogent case that the murder may be notable and your argument is making me doubt my opinion on such an article. However, this AFD is for an article about the perpetrator not the crime itself. CIreland 23:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many case, agreed. In this one, the article is about the legal efforts with respect to the perpetrator. DGG 23:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a biography. The events described are certainly newsworthy, important, etc. But I don't think they're encyclopedic. If this article is kept, it desperately needs cleanup. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Akhilleus. In addition, murder is not a notable act, and this murderer is not notable. --Evb-wiki 16:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and reopen if and when a proper entry is written. -Jmh123 14:56, 2 July 2007 (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.