Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexi Love

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. Mkdw ^talk 23:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Love[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)

After I reverted an edit that outed her, the subject contacted me privately and requested that her article be deleted since it is disruptive to her life. Since her notability is relatively low, I suggest we grant her request. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although not for the nominated reasons. The refs are very poor and fail to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ENT. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FWIW, a google appears there is/are more than one performer who goes by the name "Lexi Love?" I'm no expert, but wouldn't that muddy the water? Otherwise, I agree that she's low on the notability scale in all categories. Sources are marginal if not outright inadequate. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought we had strict notability requirements for pornographic performers – major industry awards or something? I don't know exactly what those might be, but I don't see any claim or attempt to demonstrate that she satisfies the requirement. She surely isn't notable for anything else. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The subject is reliably described as having become prominent under her real name, with coverage in national media like The New York Times and CBS News online. Whether the association is strong enough to meet our BLP standards is debateable, but the timing of this request lends credibility to the association. I don't believe we should suppress accurate information from Wikipedia at the request of one party to a dispute, because the more widely it is known the more likely it is to weaken their position in that dispute. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So is there a reliable source that makes that connection? Does this real name national coverage overcome WP:BLP1E? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz where is the New York Times article and CBS coverage you are referring to? It could help me make a more informed i-vote. I couldn't find it , but I also don't know what real name you are referring to, and perhaps that could help the search for sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Lexi Love has edited her article and without explicit association from the RS, posting it publicly violates our BLP standards and is considered WP:OUTING. Oversight has already scrubbed an attempt to out her within the past week.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a gross misuse of WP:OUTING, which should not be applied to suppress openly published information about a public figure. "Love" herself acknowledges the information to be accurate, since it was originally taken from the WIPO trademark case, published in news reports of the case, and is he basis for "Love" saying she won back the domain name incorporating her stage name. This is not a case of protecting privacy. This is a case of a public figure, whose recent activities have been covered in national media like the NY Times, trying to suppress now-embarassing public information that can easily be seen as casting doubt on her credibility in a very public dispute. That's not something Wikipedia should be a party to, and it's disturbing that admins have placed their thumbs on the scales to limit discussion of basic issues involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahuh. Despite your liberties in presuming her motives, where are the reliable sources associating the two again? I don't see them in the article? Is it due to your lack of experience adding content to articles? Are you relying on trademark cases that fall under WP:BLPPRIMARY? Isn't keeping the article in the hopes that a reliable source will make this association make this a case of blue crystal balls? Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found her real name with a bit of digging, but given that I can only find mention of that name in reliable sources in relation to one news story, and that "Lexi Love" or her past isn't mentioned at all in the coverage of that story, is there a valid reason to keep this article under its current name and in its current form as it stands? Richard3120 (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, see above. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 12:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to demonstrate notability; no grounds to override WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I find Richard3120's point persuasive. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I completely agree with Hullabaloo Wolfowitz that Wikipedia should not suppress potentially embarrassing information just because the subject demands it. The trouble is, I cannot find a single reliable source about this person that mentions the name "Lexi Love" in connection with her, or her past career. The arguments for keeping the article thus completely fail WP:V, and on its own, the article fails WP:GNG. If someone shows me a reliable source that explicitly states that this person was Lexi Love, I'd be happy to change my vote. Richard3120 (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Nothing under "Lexi Love" or her real name, I don't know what was hidden but I'm guessing it was her name which if it was then really what did she expect ? .... Someone was going to find out one way or another ..... and in this case it only took me less than a minute .... but that aside there's nothing on Google that at all confirms her notability - If HB or others have these supposed sources then please post and I'd be happy to go with !keep. –Davey2010^Talk 15:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering references in the article are all trivial or passing mentions, the fact I was not able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable secondary source, she fails WP:GNG. Notability not demonstrated. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Hopefully the nominator can give us a couple dozen more similar articles for speedy disposal. Carrite (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2018 (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.