Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jiz Lee (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 keep. (non-admin closure) --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jiz Lee[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete: Not a notable pornographic film performer. Being one of a limited minority group in porn (such as genderqueer) does not automatically make that person or their work notable.--NL19931993 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been banned for being a sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet GNG under normal consideration of what it covers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you ignored citations 9, 13, 14, 15, 18 in the article? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I’d like to hear the reasoning why this subject met GNG in 2015, but no longer does. Did GNG change that much in scope? This subject has a generous amount of coverage that certainly seems to meet GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passing GNG was asserted and a few editors bought in to that. The article was kept by non-admin closure. However, a closer look at the sources presented shows that the Fox News article is the only one that passes muster as independent reliable source coverage. The Daily Mail is now banned as a reference for facts and as evidence of notability. Two links don't even mention the subject. Finally the university's listing of the subject as a speaker does not count as independent. The university's prestige was used as additional evidence of notability. Wikipedia doesn't work that way even for professors. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — voicing Johnpacklambert in-depth significant coverage is a big deal to me & I can’t observe it in the article about subject of our discussion. Furthermore I’m voicing NL19931993 I’ve been wanting to say that also, it’s as if belonging to the LGBTQ community has become an automatic yardstick for notability.Celestina007 (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We see this a lot with claims of notability for very minor politicians. There are a few failed candidates who have been kept on the grounds that they got widespread press. I keep pointing out to people this was name dropping and not analysis of their position, one of them ran a much less significant than most campaign for the US senate, but too often the response is "they were mentioned in the New York Times, they are notable", without any consideration of the true depth of the articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passing the GNG. These citations were already in the article.[1][2][3][4]. Her scholarly writings are widely cited by journal articles satisfying WP:AUTHOR.[5][6][7][8][9] Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is a bit misleading, as they're at least as (almost definitely more) notable as a writer and activist. It clearly seems to pass GNG to me: it's hardly thinly-sourced so I don't get why attacking that someone cited Fox or the Daily Mail at one stage has anything to say about notability at all. Beyond that, Lee is just a pretty well-known figure (I've got no particular interest in anything they've done and I've still definitely heard of them as a queer woman on the other side of the world). The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG, and possibly other criteria. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the many academic citations. Toughpigs (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Totally relevant. Super over these weird nominations. This is the second one about LGBTQ people I've came across - both notable - by the same nominator. Missvain (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2020 (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.