Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Lewis (2nd nomination)

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. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Lewis[edit]

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

I am the subject of this article and would like this article deleted for a few reasons, as firstly I'm not notable for a Wikipedia article to exist about me and secondly the article contains medical information about myself that I would prefer be kept private. I contacted Wikipedia directly and they said this is the best way to go about deletion. Thank you. MariaLewis (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD for the user. ansh 666 09:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - a search for sources shows passing mentions or tabloid coverage, which is reflected in the current article. We're not going to suffer bias in the sum of all human knowledge if we remove this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources (e.g. 1, 2, 3). The medical information is also covered in reliable sources (e.g. 4, 5, 6), so deleting this article wouldn't assist in keeping such information private.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks more like tabloid journalism to me, and the medical information does not have to go in this article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave others to judge the sources but she currently has links to the medical information on her own webpage and her own linkedin, so the fact that she is supposedly requesting the deletion of this article on medical privacy grounds is not particularly credible.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the person meets Wikipedia requirements with significant in-depth coverage as pointed out above most of the sources show this. A couple like the Linkedin aren't normally good sources but in this case are just used to show career/jobs they have had. As for the medical information, the person spoke publicly about them themselves and are in the public record, just because they maybe having regrets now doesn't mean they shouldn't be referenced here. Article was voted keep before [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Lewis] after being submitted by one time user previously and think it should be voted keep again. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 21:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the subject of this article wants the article deleted (see above), we had better go along with the subject's request to have the article deleted. Vorbee (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why had we better do that? What if Donald Trump requested his article be deleted?--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tell Trump he should have thought about that before spending 5+ years spamming Twitter with his "look at me, I'm right and everyone else is wrong" tirades, then proceeding to be the most unpopular US President in living memory .... which is something this person hasn't done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking about it once, no editing disputes on that article would be beneficial... J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE Samat lib (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a policy for use in a deletion discussion, but merely states what a closing admin might be inclined to do in certain circumstances.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, when I find things like this within a few clicks I tend to stop looking fairly quickly. Second, if she wanted to establish that she was non-notable, then she shouldn't have gone to such extraordinary lengths to try to show everyone how notable she is. Third, if you don't want people to know you had a stroke, don't become a spokesperson for the National Stroke Foundation and tell your story in as much gory detail as possible for the public.

For someone who appears to spend every waking minute trying to insert themselves into public view, I find a deletion request on privacy grounds wholly incredible, in the literal sense. Given the deletion rationale from the first AfD, and the contribution history of the editor who started it, I strongly suspect that the actual issue here is that someone found out that they can't control the content of their own Wikipedia article and decided to throw a tantrum and try to get it deleted. GMG ^talk 15:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with Pontificalibus and GreenMeansGo, subject has given many interviews and even written a number of articles regarding health issues, so I find that part of the delete rationale spurious. I also see there is an amount of information published, but no more than expected for someone in entertainment industry and deeper examination shows that much of it is primary, self published, trivial, user contributory or unreliable sources. Article history indicates WP:COI and WP:OWN and WP:SPIP issues. Looking past all that, she actually fails subject specific notability guideline WP:AUTHOR, she hasn't done anything outside of ordinary journalism in her day job and I can't find any policy that says having a medical condition makes one notable. ClubOranje^T 10:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject with plenty of reliably sourced citations to support the article's information. There is no reason to delete this article.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I generally am opposed to biographical subjects dictating WP content, it seems to me that a reasonable case can be made for a GNG fail here. Carrite (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.