Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Richardson

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. postdlf (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Lily Richardson

Lily Richardson (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)

Not a notable person, only claim being a witness to a murder. Not only is there very little talk about the murder itself, the sources I found had only one instance that talked about Richardson. Delete. Buggie111 (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• delete. This person would need multiple mentions in reliable sources to meet notability criteria. If there's an article about the murder case, she might be mentioned in it, but that wouldn't be a reason for there to be an article on her the person. Generally the practice for cases where a person is known for involvement in one event, rather than being famous for multiple things, the article would be about the event, not the person, e.g. Kathryn Johnston shooting. delldot ∇. 04:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. There are at least 4 Articles from seperate newspapers that cite Richardson as being key to the crowns case. She also appeared as a character of note in the story of her fathers fight with Microsoft in the Australian Story television show.. She has been seen on television by over two million Australians due to the Australian story and is recognized in the street. Please do not play down the role of a key witness in a murder trial.. it is not something to be taken lightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.166.252 (talk • contribs) — 124.149.166.252 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. A lot of murder trials have "key witnesses". Nothing special about this one; as for helping her father with stuff, wouldn't all that go on his article? CarniCat (meow) 06:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - NN known for a single event. reddogsix (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 19:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: per all the above. It is also fascinating to note that the page's creator is the fittingly named Ricricho (talk · contribs) who also contributed heavily to Ric Richardson. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The criteria is not known for a single event... she is known on national TV for her story in Australian Story TV show... it amazes me how the editors here seem to sit in judgment of others without realizing the true gravity of the events... if you witnessed a murder you would not write it off so friviously... and being on National TV is not a frivolous matter either... also re comment directly above of course I would activly cover my own page... I like to make sure things are kept factual but I am frequently edited aven though I know the facts better than anyone... for example my last edit was to fix the statment made that my brother and I invented "shadesavers".. that is not correct... we didnt invent them.. we just were successful for making them in rainbow colors and making them very popular in Australia but do you think I could contribute without being ostracized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricricho (talk • contribs) 02:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sure you can edit without being ostracized, if you're open about your connection with the article and stick to the recommendations here. As to your specific argument for keeping this article: not every thing that is not frivolous is notable, is it? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 23:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Notable. I would call being on national television as part of an internationally recognized news event as notable. I would also call being the key witness in a murder trial that is of national reporting importance [1] notable. What does concern me is the subjectivity of the opinions being expressed here. It's a bit disappointing.

• Popularity does not equal notability. reddogsix (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2012 (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.