Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Lewis (adult entertainer)

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. WP:SNOW early close. Arguably the article could be speedied under BLP principles but since the early close is appropriate anyway we don't need to debate or decide that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Lewis (adult entertainer)

Lisa Lewis (adult entertainer) (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)

Some sporadic coverage in the local press for minor publicity stunts and "first bisexual New Zealander to be a boxing promoter" does not equate to notability or significance. Since the subject of the article wants it deleted and any notability is marginal at best in Wikipedia terms, I feel this is a case where we should defer to the subject's wishes and remove the article.  ‑ Iridescent 08:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - per Iridescent. --dstone66 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - I think there is enough coverage for WP:GNG and WP:BASIC plus now that its back to its original form with all references and nothing deleted I suggest looking at the article again. If not I can add now more articles that suggest it. On a side note WP:PORN has rated the page as high importance so I dont know if that counts for something --Bennyaha (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• DeleteJust had my door knocked on by a friend of Lisa Lewis making threats against me, so I dont want to make be involved in this shit anymore--Bennyaha (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Bennyaha: I hope you have followed the advice at Wikipedia:Threats of violence and contacted the WMF emergency email and considered contacting your local authorities because in-person threats from a friend of the article subject is totally and utterly unacceptable and likely unlawful. Your user page provides plenty of information to locate you, maybe you should edit it down and even seek oversighting (though the damage of being found has happened already). EdChem (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I was actually going to say the same thing. Whether or not this article should be kept, Bennyaha is entitled to their opinion - arguing "keep" in a deletion discussion does not justify real-life threats against their livelihood, physical or otherwise. I second Ed's recommendation, there is nothing remotely appropriate about what transpired here. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per Iridescent's nomination. The subject is barely notable at best, and since they would prefer not to have an article about them, I think we should accomodate their wishes. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - This is a BLP and the subject has requested deletion. I don't see the evidence needed to keep an article against wishes of its subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per the fact she fails PORNBIO & GNG, Her wanting it deleted is irrelevant in my eyes but whatever there's no evidence of notability so get rid. –Davey2010^Talk 14:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Delete: I see no reason to doubt that the article was created in good faith, and it is not an attack page. There is coverage from a variety of sources but it amounts to a highly marginal biography in notability terms. As a BLP, the fact that the subject favours deletion is a relevant consideration (even despite alleged actions towards Bennyaha) and much of the material (abused as a child, arrested for public nudity, etc) has the potential to be embarrassing and / or distressing to have linked to a name at the top of a google search. Consequently, in the interest of harm minimisation in a case of marginal notability (at best), I favour deletion. Having said that, in the event that the article's subject continues to attract media attention, there may come a time when notability justifies an article and in that event WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE would guide content but would not prevent its re-creation. EdChem (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Nominator is correct here. The subject wants this gone and notability is marginal at best. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 12 July 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.