Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Fischer

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 No consensus. Avi 18:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pamela Fischer

Pamela Fischer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

likely hoax Wooyi 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Due to the introduction of new citations and references, it may not be a hoax but still need to be scrutinized. I as of now retract my view and do not support immediate deletion Wooyi 03:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete db-bio. JuJube 04:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Per Eastmain's expansion of the article, changing the vote to Keep. JuJube 03:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree. YechielMan 06:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Neutral. Eastmain has removed cause for deletion. My only hesitation is that I'm still not 100% sold on notability. YechielMan 04:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edeans 06:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: apparently not a hoax, but still a notability issue due to lack of other notable cases, issues, controversies, etc., this lawyer is connected with. Edeans 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: though with the new information brought to light is not enough to change your vote to rename/redirect/neutral/etc...? Mathmo ^Talk 12:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Keep no sources, couldn't find any either from looking around. Possibly not a hoax (at least not all of it), based on this link. Mathmo ^Talk 12:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, have changed my vote to Keep on the basis of new evidence arriving and the original reason given by the nominator of "hoax" has been found to be completely false. So in my view this AfD should be thrown out, allow it to stay and then again perhaps in the future have another AfD if people still believe it doesn't meet other required criteria. Mathmo ^Talk 03:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This may not be a hoax, thanks to Mathmo. The assertion of the article makes a prima facie case for notability, and this link to her CV seems to confirm it. But there are verdict reporting services and other reliable sources for the claims made in this article, and in the absence of a reference to one of these, this article about a living person needs more to stand. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, may not be a hoax but if we can't verify it we must assume it is. Alf photoman 15:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a hoax. I found some sources. I added two newspaper story references from Canoe.ca, the online service of the Calgary Sun newspaper and other newspapers owned by Sun Media, as well a link from the Law Society of Alberta confirming that she is a lawyer. I cannot confirm whether the $18 million figure mentioned in the story is a Canadian record, but it is quite large. I removed the claim that it was the largest, and simply reported the dollar figure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

• Comment some evidence is introduced to prove it is not a hoax, but further scrutiny is still needed to be verifiable. Wooyi 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, it is verifiable. Sources have been mentioned and various ones included in the article. Mathmo ^Talk 03:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

delete-user:Texaco oil king's only edits have been either vandalism or vanity, he is the self-identified Paul Klassen, which I am now putting up for AfD. Chris 03:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Chris, determining AfD does not depend on who wrote the article, but rather the merit of the article itself. Wooyi 03:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete The odd event is worth mentioning somewhere, but the lawyer who won the case oes not necessarily rate an article. DGG 06:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, if you believe this is worthwhile mentioning then wouldn't a Merge/Redirect be a better vote to have made than delete? Mathmo ^Talk 09:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. Turgidson 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. --MaNeMeBasat 18:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I understand the original listing, given the substub quality of the article as it was created, but the current version is sourced, and key role in important litigation establishes notability. JamesMLane t c 10:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The sources do show she's council in an important case. --Oakshade 02:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not a hoax, but not close to notable. Booshakla 07:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Non-notable, but might have other cases not mentioned in the article as it currently stands — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 06:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge over to the Owen Hart article. Not a hoax, but not quite notable to warrant an independent article right now either. (jarbarf) 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - current version is sourced and this search indicates more citations could be added. Addhoc 10:27, 8 February 2007 (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.