Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa K. Fitzpatrick

: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 non-notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

=[[Lisa K. Fitzpatrick]]=

:{{la|Lisa K. Fitzpatrick}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lisa_K._Fitzpatrick_M.D. Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Lisa K. Fitzpatrick M.D.}})

no real evidence for notability, despite the relatively minor administrative position DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Way too promotional. Even if notability could be established, WP:TNT applies. Edwardx (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep Margalob (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment {{ping|Margalob}} Since AFD discussions are not a vote but rather a discussion about whether the article in question meets or does not meet the criteria for inclusion, would you care to expand your input here as to why you feel the article should be kept? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep Looks as if there is coverage about her, but the references in the article are so poorly done, it takes a lot of work to see where they're from. Since notability is marginal from given sources, I recommend keeping with a banner asking for help with references. Also, doesn't look promotional to me. VanEman (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete as I concur with DGG with that this is still questionable for her own independent notability aside from the apparent news sources about her. Draft if needed as I'm not currently confident this can be kept and improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete She is a local public health administrator for a medicare program. That does not make someone notable. She was an Associate professor, that by default does not make them notable. She has published articles. So does every other health researcher. She has peer reviewed articles. Well, actually, who does the peer reviewing is generally not noted, but it does not establish notability. Nothing suggests she meets the notability requirements for a politician (which she would if she had a high enough ranking public health appointment, such as Surgeon General of the US to go to a level none would dispute), nor is there any evidence she meets the notability criteria for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 24 April 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.