Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 August 8

I believe this article was deleted for an inaccurate reason. What complicated things is that the relevant guideline it satisfied, WP:PORNBIO, was under discussion at the time, and it was thus interpreted to not be a valid guideline for proving notability (btw, that guideline ended up not being changed at all). I contacted the original admin who deleted the article about it before I realized that s/he is on vacation, so I re-created the article with an explanation as to why I did so...because the subject passes point #1 of PORNBIO: having been nominated for two non-scene-related awards in multiple years (Acting Performance of the Year - Female in 2011 and MILF Performer of the Year in 2012). Still, another admin speedily deleted the article without warning earlier today, and attempts to get him/her to even userfy the article were unsuccessful, so I brought it here. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about the recent G4 speedy deletion, then I'm inclined to overturn. The articles appear more than cosmetically different, and it's been over a year since the deletion debate. Consensus can change, and I think Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs) was wrong to assert that "...you can't reverse the results of AfD discussions simply because you don't agree with the outcome" (see User_talk:Erpert#Elexis_Monroe for full discussion). That's simply not the case. Re-creations are permitted all the time. If we were talking two, three weeks after the original deletion then that would be a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was not intended to imply that AfDed articles can never be recreated, but that an editor who disagrees with the outcome of an AfD cannot restart the page with the same content. G4 doesn't have any sort of time limit and the AfD is only from last year. Hut 8.5 08:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A few questions and/or concerns. First, it would nice to be able to view the actual article that was recently speedily deleted to judge whether it really does meet PORNBIO, but it appears that it would based on the info here, which shows two 2012 (AVN & XBIZ) "MILF Performer of the Year" nominations and one 2011 XBIZ "Acting Performance of the Year - Female" nomination. Second, are there any lingering copyright issues (as hinted to here) with this recent re-creation? Third, it doesn't appear to me that the former AfD discussion is really relevant here in any event...so maybe taking this article back to AfD might be a solution? Frankly, I'm unsure how to vote here given the limited options presented here. Guy1890 (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may, let me clear up a few procedural questions. The original AfD is irrelevant; all that matters is the speedy deletion. I've undeleted both the article and the talk page to help. I believe the talk page also helps address the copyvio issue (sounds like a false positive). Mackensen (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion - based on the above discussion & a review of the most recent article talk page & article content. Thanx for restoring both histories as well. Guy1890 (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the article should be restored since it passes WP:PORNBIO, which states "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times". While PORNBIO doesn't specify what "several times" means, I feel that two awards is sufficient for "several", but some users don't believe that two is enough and that is why articles like these are often deleted. I was planning on creating this article myself and I know of other award nominations she has received. Elexis Monroe has been nominated for an XBIZ Award for Acting Performance of the Year - Female in 2011, AVN Award for MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year in 2012, and two XBIZ Awards for MILF Performer of the Year in 2012 and 2013. Four performer awards is more than enough to pass WP:PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting admin: the article did not differ significantly from the version that was nominated for deletion. Be careful with your versions if you check this: the recreation was based on the article at the time it was nominated for deletion, not the article at the time it was deleted. Some material was removed during the AfD for WP:BLP/WP:OR concerns which has now been put back. Here is the comparison you should be using. The only non-trivial difference is the addition of a section on "Health issues", which should have been mostly or entirely removed for BLP concerns (it includes an allegation that the subject was fraudulently using donations referenced only to someone's blog). The recreator left a comment on the article talk page in which they said they had recreated the article not because they had addressed the concerns in the AfD but because they thought the AfD decision was wrong and they felt they could overturn community consensus unilaterally. This is the kind of situation G4 is meant for. The article did not claim that the subject has been nominated for any more awards than the AfDed version did, and those nominations were not considered sufficient to confer notability at the AfD. Hut 8.5 08:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The article did not claim that the subject has been nominated for any more awards than the AfDed version did, and those nominations were not considered sufficient to confer notability at the AfD." I'm sorry, but that's really irrelevant IMHO. The fact is that the subject of this article has been nominated for enough "well-known and significant industry awards" to pass PORNBIO. Guy1890 (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The deleting admin's analysis is entirely correct. Note that the original AFD was conducted under a less stringent version of PORNBIO than exists today; that the guideline is now more restrictive is hardly a basis for overturning the AFD. The underlying AFD concluded that such awards as "MILF Performer of the Year" did not satisfy the "well-known and significant" standard of the PORNBIO guideline (supporters of deletion described it variously as "a downlevel category with no discernible standards" and an "industry-promoting award"), and no reason has been provided here for setting that consensus aside, nor has any reason been presented here for disregarding the AFD consensus that the subject fell so far below the GNG that possible technical satisfaction of the SNG was irrelevant. It's also curious that comments from prominent porn enthusiasts have shown up so rapidly here, and suspect canvassing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator did notify a wikiproject here (not that this is necessarily inappropriate). Hut 8.5 11:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The underlying AFD concluded that such awards as 'MILF Performer of the Year' did not satisfy the 'well-known and significant' standard of the PORNBIO guideline"...which is about as clearly an incorrect statement as I can see. Guy1890 (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRV has always been reluctant to enforce year-old AfDs. PORNBIO was a defective guideline at the time that AfD took place, and at that time DRV was openly refusing to implement it. The guideline has changed for the better since. Although I can't see any reasonable basis on which one could contend that Elexis Monroe is notable, I agree that procedurally speaking, it would take a fresh AfD to establish that.—S Marshall T/C 12:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I just don't see any logic to the position that because a guideline has been tightened up, a deletion consensus under the less restrictive version is somehow suspect or needs revisiting. It's already too easy for porn publicists to get promotional pieces into the project, and allowing past deletions to be revisited every time another set of tinfoil trophies is handed out en masse is just a formula for wasting constructive editors' time and effort. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It's already too easy for porn publicists to get promotional pieces into the project" Is there any evidence that that is what is going on here (or anywhere else for that matter)? If not, then it's irrelevant to this discussion here. Guy1890 (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples? My impression is that recreations without substantiated changes are allowed at DRV closer to three years. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

list at AfD It's been a year. I personally will be voting to delete I think (I'm not seeing WP:GNG met and I'm not sure two==several) but consensus can change. Hobit (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Straightforward case of G4, evidently the exact same article (largely the same wording), but most crucially: still exactly the same situation with respect to notability. No new arguments. There was a legitimate consensus for deletion in the AfD, and just because the author doesn't like the outcome doesn't give him the right to unilaterally overrule it, as he evidently wishes to do. Yes, theoretically, consensus could change, but there isn't the slightest indication suggesting that it has, or that it should (as others have noted, the relevant guideline has, if anything, become more rigid in the meantime). The argument that "it's been a year" is unconvincing: we don't just re-run every contentious AfD every twelve months just because somebody feels like it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the !votes discounted PORNBIO as flawed. Now that it has become more rigid, it might get more traction. Seems worth holding an AfD to find out... Hobit (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to the closer there was consensus that even if PORNBIO was valid then the subject would not pass it. Hut 8.5 16:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, re-reading what was discussed about that "guideline" in January 2012, and what changes were made to it in June 2012, I find that those changes didn't in fact address the fundamental disagreement about the validity of the guideline at all. The January discussion was closed with the finding that the predominant opinion was that the guideline, being based on the recognition of mere industry-internal "awards", was fundamentally flawed and incompatible with our basic principles of demanding independent reliable sourcing. This fundamental objection was deliberately not addressed by the later discussion in June. Hence, the finding still stands that PORNBIO does not have consensus. It is a fundamentally invalid pseudo-guideline that has no authority at all, in either its old or its new form. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - "The January discussion was closed with the finding that the predominant opinion was that the guideline, being based on the recognition of mere industry-internal 'awards', was fundamentally flawed and incompatible with our basic principles of demanding independent reliable sourcing. This fundamental objection was deliberately not addressed by the later discussion in June. Hence, the finding still stands that PORNBIO does not have consensus. It is a fundamentally invalid pseudo-guideline that has no authority at all, in either its old or its new form."
      - Wow, that's the most ridiculous statement that I've read here on Wikipedia in quite a while. Members of the mainstream film industry receive "industry-internal awards" all the time. I would personally be very open to debating what, in fact, the guidelines of PORNBIO should say, but this isn't the place to do that. Guy1890 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If you'd actually taken the trouble to read that discussion, you'd know that there's no excuse for perpetuating that ridiculous canard about comparing those porn awards with oscars and similar real awards. It was thoroughly discussed at the time [1], and continuing to bandy it about now is nothing but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        (edit conflict) Ah, no, it isn't; as Hobit mentioned above, consensus can change. And a pornography award isn't a real award? Maybe not to you, but Wikipedia isn't interested in anyone's opinion when it comes to notability. Also, you seem to be forgetting that you're supposed to be discussing Elexis Monroe herself, not porn in general (this is starting to make a bias more evident). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        AVN are compared to Oscar or referred as Oscar of porn by hundreds if not thousand of sources (eg the first I found [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). Actually I found them more convincing than you saying the opposite and quoting yourself saying the opposite. Cavarrone 06:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Your opinion on this subject "Future Perfect at Sunrise" is, put simply, ridiculous on the face of it and, IMHO unfortunately unworthy of a Wikipedia administrator. It smacks of an I just don't like it mentality, which has no place here. Do you have any idea how many AfDs since 2012 have discussed whether or not a subject meets PORNBIO, which ultimately decides whether or not that subject should have an article on Wikipedia? I sure don't, but Mr. Wolfowitz might know, since he's likely initiated a large chunk of them in a continuing effort to gradually whittle the Pornography Project down to nothing. I'm sorry, but the idea that the PORNBIO standard isn't a "real standard" is what is really the canard here. Guy1890 (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to let the closing admin know, the users who are !voting to delete here are the same users that !voted delete before, but...it's because they don't like the guideline, the category the subject is nominated for, or pornography at all. Since when are those valid reasons to delete? And as far as Future Perfect at Sunrise's allegation that I am reopening this because I didn't like the outcome, I already clearly explained to Hut 8.5 that that isn't what I'm doing. Since last year, people have started to realize in these porn-related AfD discussions that that's what some of the delete !voters have been doing, which thus resulted in some such articles being restored (why do you think Capri Anderson came back?). And as far as WP:PORNBIO becoming more rigid, well, point #1 of that guideline (which Ms. Monroe still passes, and she passed back then too) hasn't changed at all, and it is still satisfied. Care to explain how it isn't? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capri Anderson came back on the grounds of her 2013 AVN award for best supporting actress and of her additional award nominee for best actress, if you had restored an article identical to the previous deleted version it would be speedy deleted per G4 as well. Cavarrone 06:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it was also mentioned that she passed notability before that--actually, it was mentioned by you. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned what and where?? The point is simple, "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion" is elegible for deletion via G4. The Anderson article was improved, so it was not elegible for speedy deletion, it was nominated for deletion and survived, even with my vote. This one was not improved, and the polemical, pointy talk page discussion you started there was an obvious call for deletion via G4. This is not an AfD, we are here discussing if Hut was correct in his application of G4 and yes, he was correct. When you give an example, you should care to compare two situations which are comparable, as a minimum. Cavarrone 09:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've said repeatedly here and elsewhere that you recreated the article because in your opinion the subject passes WP:PORNBIO and because you think the delete !voters in the AfD were motivated by personal prejudices. That is simply a disagreement with the outcome of the AfD. When the community makes a decision through a process like that it can't be overruled on the whim of one editor. I don't edit pornography articles here, and I came across the article when clearing pages at WP:SCV. I did not delete it because of any prejudices surrounding the subject matter. I deleted it because it was an unimproved recreation of a page that had been previously deleted at AfD. Hut 8.5 18:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hut, I've noticed that when I ask you a simple question, you seem to answer everything but that. The question I asked is, how does the subject fail point #1 of WP:PORNBIO? Instead of answering that, you just continued to accuse me of re-creating the article because I didn't agree with the outcome. If everyone saw it that way, then how come that notion never came up when Celeste Star and the aforementioned Capri Anderson articles were restored? You really ought to assume good faith here. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't answer that question because it is completely irrelevant to my deletion. The fact remains that the AfD was closed with a consensus that the subject did not meet PORNBIO. If you recreated it because in your opinion the subject does meet PORNBIO, without providing any additional evidence to support that fact, then as I said you recreated the page because you disagreed with the AfD - either the close or the rationales used to support that position in the discussion. The same goes if you recreated it because you think the delete !voters were motivated by personal prejudice. The two examples you cite would not have qualified for G4 because the recreations stated the subject had won additional awards since the first deletion. Hut 8.5 09:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The two examples you cite would not have qualified for G4 because the recreations stated the subject had won additional awards since the first deletion"...which, as has been highlighted at the beginning of this discussion here, applies in this case as well. Look, are there some issues with some of the sourcing to other portions of the most recent version of the article in question? Sure, but it's pretty clear that the subject's past & recent nominations passes PORNBIO. Guy1890 (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The recreated article said that the subject had been nominated for XBIZ "Acting Performance of the Year – Female" and "MILF Performer of the Year". The version sent to AfD claimed the same two nominations, and during the discussion another one was added (AVN "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year"). The AfD concluded that these nominations were not sufficient to confer notability through PORNBIO. Hut 8.5 21:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRV isn't ever a "re-do" of another AfD about the exact same subject, so it doesn't concern me what the previous AfD said or didn't say. Quite frankly, I've only skimmed a brief portion of it, as it really isn't relevant here. It also doesn't make much sense to me to delete this article again only to have it likely re-created at some point in time in the (near?) future by some other editor (not me BTW) in a more improved version, since it's likely to just end up at AfD once again (since deletionists currently plague the Pornography Project). Why don't we allow the article to exist so that it can be improved and just skip all that other nonsense? Guy1890 (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G4 only applies if the recreated version is not sufficiently improved compared to the AfDed version. If, hypothetically, the recreated article said that the subject had been nominated for some award that the AfDed version did not mention, then it would prevent a G4 speedy deletion. Whether the new nomination confers notability or not is an issue for another AfD to decide, not speedy deletion. You claimed above that this hypothetical situation actually applies to this specific case. As I explained in my previous comment, you were wrong. I doesn't make any sense to be to allow someone to recreate an almost identical, unimproved copy of an article we have decided is unencyclopedic in the hope that someday somebody might create a version which complies with our standards. If someone does create an improved version of this article it will not be speedily deleted under G4. Until that happens the previous decision stands. Hut 8.5 10:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether the new nomination confers notability or not is an issue for another AfD to decide, not speedy deletion." Exactly, since we're only going to end up at yet another AfD, it makes no sense to me to delete an article that will almost certainly meet the relevant criteria (PORNBIO) that applies to that same article. It really should be no surprise to anyone that the administrator that originally speedily deleted the article in question still supports that deletion here. I'm sure that's a pretty common occurrence here at DRV. Further comment is really pointless. Guy1890 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misinterpreted my comment. The part you've quoted was discussing a purely hypothetical situation which doesn't apply here. If someone comes up with some new evidence of notability, then the subject can have an article. Until that happens the previous decision is going to stand. This is especially true for recreations which are almost identical to the version we decided wasn't suitable. Hut 8.5 09:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion but eventually allow recreation of a different article by a different editor. Hut 8.5 was enterely correct on deleting this under G4, the article was almost identical to the one which was deleted via AfD, so identical that Erpert was notified about a possible copyright violation of a mirror site which stored an old version of the article. If Erpert considered invalid the previous AfD and wanted the identical article restored the correct venue was deletion review; knowing him a bit, and after reading his polemical comment on the article talk page, I bet he just wanted to raise a new fuss about PORNBIO, as usual. On the other hand, if someone else want to create a different article about the subject with additional informations in support of her notability and without blatant BLP violations (please no fraud accusations without the strong support of independent reliable sources) is free to do it. Cavarrone 06:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Knowing me a bit"? "[Raising] a new fuss as usual"? You do not know me like that, so don't you dare throw out those kinds of accusations. And who are you to say I can't re-create this article? That's not up to you. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know you at all, but as far as I can remember, you've come to DRV several times. Every time I remember you coming here, you've always wanted to add more porn-related content to Wikipedia. Clearly you enjoy pornography, and taking your userboxes at face value, you're a 32-year-old male virgin, which I can well believe. I'm afraid, Erpert, that people tend to draw conclusions from the evidence you provide.—S Marshall T/C 12:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which you well believe? My personal life and choices have nothing to do with this. And I've only come to DRV one other time. In addition, I've !voted "delete" in several porn-related AfDs; not to mention that I even started this one. Everyone needs to focus on the topic at hand here instead of me.

Also, the simple question is how she fails WP:PORNBIO, which for some reason people refuse to answer--oh, I know why...because she doesn't! Even if it was thought that I created the article maliciously (which I didn't, no matter how many times Hut says it), the fact of the matter is that she still passes the guideline. If people don't like the guideline, do what happened last time: get consensus to change it first and then revisit articles. Don't just use WP:IAR to justify deletion. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether the subject fails PORNBIO is one for AfD. We've had that discussion, and the consensus is that yes, she does fail PORNBIO. Unless that consensus changes or becomes irrelevant you have to abide by it, whether you agree with it or not. The issue to be addressed in a review of a G4 speedy deletion is whether the article was sufficiently identical and unimproved compared to the version deleted by AfD, not whether the AfD decision was correct. I never said you created the article "maliciously", and nobody here has argued the deletion was justified by IAR. Hut 8.5 19:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and nobody here has argued the deletion was justified by IAR." That's pretty much the postion taken by "Future Perfect at Sunrise" above. They might not state it that way, but it appears to be the exact same rationale in any event. Guy1890 (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, there's a subtle difference. FPaS is saying that PORNBIO isn't a valid guideline at all, not that it is a valid guideline they're electing to ignore in this case. Hut 8.5 21:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're being overly generous towards a fellow administrator, which I can understand, but it's really six of one & a half a dozen of another. PORNBIO simply can't be ignored because one editor chooses to ignore it as "invalid". That's not the way things work on here at all. Guy1890 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the accusation of bad faith. I never said I actually agreed with FPaS's position, I was only clarifying why I made my comment about IAR. Hut 8.5 10:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know something? Rebecca1990 brought it to my attention that the multiple year requirement isn't part of the criteria anymore. Changes things now, doesn't it? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that should make any difference. That edit was made during the AfD discussion, and at least some of the participants (and the closer) would have taken it into account. The reason given for excluding the award nominations at AfD was that they weren't significant enough, not that they weren't from multiple years. Hut 8.5 09:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of said awards was not actually decided. And if the guideline was indeed changed, why wouldn't it make a difference? People who are against the article's existence can't justify their position by just sitting there and hoping that no one noticed the change (although I'll admit that I didn't notice it myself at first). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 13:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my comment below. Further labeling hasn't done anything to reduce the temperature of this discussion has it. If this continues this may have to be closed early. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um...Spartaz? Personal issues aren't going on anymore. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The temperature of this discussion is becoming unnecessarily heated and I would ask everyone participating to dial down the heat and restrict themselves to discussing the policy and the content and to avoid making any further comments about personalities. DRV requires a collegiate editing environment to function properly and its not unknown for discussion to be closed early is this isn't possible and for votes to be given significantly less weight if their proponents have engaged in labeling and personal commentary. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the G4 which was entirely correct, but if the relevant guideline is majorly different (I don't go near this area) then by all means send it back to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline hasn't changed. Here is the version which was in effect when the AfD was closed, and here is the version in effect now. Apart from the addition of a sentence saying the criteria should be applied only to people involved in the adult entertainment industry and the removal of a {{Disputedtag}} they are exactly the same. Hut 8.5 15:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has changed; I even showed a diff that showed the guideline before and after the change. With all due respect, what about that did you miss? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That change was made before the AfD closed. Furthermore the issue in the change was not mentioned by any of the delete !voters as justification for their opinion. Therefore it could not have had any effect on the decision to delete the article. Hut 8.5 19:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they missed it like I did; or maybe they didn't care because they don't like the subject. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 22:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion (WT:Notability (people)/Archive 2012#PORNBIO: yes or no? (maybe)) and edits to the guideline (overall diff, history) overlapped with the AfD, but the last four deletes came after the page protection. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse G4 deletion. I agree with Hut 8.5's evaluation of the diff between AfD nomination and recreation: the only material difference was the Health issues section, which contained a combination WP:BLP violation of both Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material and Avoid self-published sources. There were no substantial changes before the speedy deletion. There is a new 2013 nomination to add to the three discussed and rejected at the AfD. My opinion is that it is not enough, but I have no interest in arguing over the definition of "several". Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8 August 2013

Elexis Monroe