Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lia Montelongo (2nd nomination)

Lia Montelongo

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Lia Montelongo
• Articles for deletion/Lia Montelongo (2nd nomination)

Lia Montelongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1) simply not notable

2) Lacks any solid independent sourcing

3) Has been an attractive nuisance to the subject for some four years. Used for harrassment and multiple BLP violations. See this ANI thread for full details

Different reasons here will appear to different people - the net result ought to be delete and salt. Scott Mac (Doc) 02:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia should not be a platform for harassment. Four years of socking and harassment are too much. Borderline notability, which is a guideline and not a principle. Common sense and humanitarian concerns should guide this decision. Durova⁴¹² 02:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:BIO. Google news archive shows only one press mention: [1]. No independent references in the article. I do not go along necessarily with deleting a bio article because someone persistently vandalized it orp posted inappropriate material in it: we have the ability to protect an article and to block offenders. No one should be empowered to get a biography of a notable person deleted by vandalizing it persistently. This one deos not really seem to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It is very unlikely that this vandal's goal was to get the biography deleted. Wikipedia has limited volunteer resources to manage a persistent harassment campaign of this duration. Durova⁴¹² 02:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. While we shouldn't delete solidly notable BLPs based on real-world issues, it's fine to evaluate marginally notable BLPs based on their real-world impact. In this case, we lose very little by overlooking the subject, and potentially harm them by keeping the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Insufficient coverage found. While we know her work from IMDb and such, there is virtually no substantial coverage of her outside of that. From reliable sources, there simply isn't enough to write a reasonably detailed article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: Not anyway notable per our various biography inclusion criteria.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per Durova and ANI thread. -- œ^™ 04:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Durova hits the nail on the head. Barely notable and a frequent target for harassment. This is one of those cases where deletion is the morally correct thing to do. AniMate 04:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete and salt - Per nom, Durova, ANI thread. Not much else to say, we aren't myspace, and we certainly aren't some soapbox for a stalker to harass someone.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note to the closing administrator I have just received an e-mail from Lia after notifying her of this debate and the closer of this thread might want to look over it before doing anything. Let it be known that she supports the deletion of her page, but I think a word from her here might be in order. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Having done a bit of reading on celebrity stalking, it is probably better if she doesn't post here. Celebrity stalkers crave vicarious contact with their targets. So let's close the door on this person firmly and politely, to the best of our ability. Durova⁴¹² 06:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I notified her, too, and got a reply indicating that she's fine with the article being deleted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per wishes of subject and prior persistent misuse of the article as an attack platform. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)