Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Adams (3rd 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 procedurally closed without a result. There is evidence of major problems with user conduct surrounding this AfD and the Stephanie Adams article, to the point that the integrity of this AfD discussion has been irreparably compromised. There are also allegations of significant off-wiki misconduct by one or more editors who have participated in this discussion. As such, I am closing this AfD without a result so the entire situation can be investigated. Anyone with evidence concerning off-wiki misconduct by editors on this article or AfD should please forward it to the Arbitration Committee. If editors without any connection, either positive or negative, with the article subject wish to pursue deletion of this article, they can do so later on after the current concerns are resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Adams

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

Below is the previous AfD discussion for reference WP:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Adams (2nd nomination)

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992 Notability is borderline. All Playboy playmates were once considered notable. This is now not the case. The literary career of the subject is questionable with respect to notability. There are no RS that discuss any of the works other than to mention they exist. The subject’s lawsuit with NYCPD isn't notable. The only thing I can see that contributes to notability is the subject is the first playmate to "come out" as a lesbian. Furthermore this article has been a battleground for six years due to the subject’s relentless socking and badgering of WMF volunteer staff to make this article a promotional vanity page. Fasttimes68 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

"Keep the article." Here are a few reasons why the article should exist some of them as mentioned by Fasttime68 itself.

1) The literary career of the subject is not questionable. All her literary subjects possess valid ISBN numbers. 2) The subject's lawsuit with NYCPD included a large amount of money. 3) First playmate to "come out" as a lesbian. (Not much relevant however against the above two mentioned points)--Editorkabaap (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only valid argument your keep vote might have is point #3. There are thousands, if not millions of authors that unlike Adams who have actually had people buy and (gasp) read their works that aren’t notable per Wikipedia. And there are thousands if not millions of people who have been involved in legal action. And as you say, point #3 isn’t relevant against the others. So what are we left with?

By "literary subjects" I guess you mean books. As I think I have already pointed out in the talk page, ISBNs do not confer anything to books other than ease of description and location. The most negligible of material can have an ISBN (and some excellent recent books lack an ISBN). -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It annoys the fuck out of me that we are supposed to have a third debate here when some overzealous administrator has excised the previous debate histories from view. Please restore them. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the recreation asserts clear WP:Notability - She has been more than just a playmate - has a publishing company , written book and was involved in a notable legal case- Youreallycan 15:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the legal case is notable then why have an article on the individual and not on the legal case? Her books don't seem to help towards her notability (and apparently self-published if it is through her own publishing company). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural Keep - Until previous debate histories are restored. Notability is not temporary~~ Carrite (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh, the versions are there in the history... Carrite (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~- I'll wheel out some of my prose from the last debate: "Comment - My understanding is that the original page was started by the subject and an edit war ensued over its alleged promotional intent, relating to the subject's website, not her Playboy appearance. During the scuffle 3RR was violated by the subject and the chief critic and both seem to have been issued indefinite blocks as a result. In the meantime, the article took on a life of its own, which caused the subject to become quite irate. That's neither here nor there from my perspective, but there are those who feel WP should accommodate the desires of BLP subjects as best we're able. My point is that Playboy centerfold objects are not inherently notable, that the main case for encyclopedia-worthiness beyond that, relating to purported "First Lesbian Centerfold" status has been belied by her current heterosexual engagement, and that if one disregards these things, one is left with a non-notable blog author who has written a couple non-notable books, failing GNG. The easiest way to clean up what is clearly a festering BLP problem is to blow this biography away — on the basis of principle, not the whims of the subject. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)" — Redirection to the list of Playmates for the appropriate year would also be logical. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will get out of the way to ease consensus. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:N doesn't care about centerfolds, lesbians, or lawsuits. What WP:N notices is that a topic attracts sufficiently significant attention from the world at large over a period of time. The nomination asserts that "The subject’s lawsuit with NYCPD isn't notable." This is a confusion, because we are not here to discuss whether the lawsuit should have a standalone article. What the lawsuit provides is many reliable sources that address the topic in detail, thus the lawsuit contributes to wp:notability. This topic passes WP:GNG as per the sources already listed in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject, beside being a centerfold, has maintained a successful modeling career, a successful writing career, a successful career as a celebrity, has appeared in a number of films/videos, has appeared at large functions as a speaker, and has an article currently supported by 28 references. She has also made the news through two court cases. Other references are available to further expand the article. Origins and previous history of the article are not relevant to the current discussion of notability. Pkeets (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not we accept your opinion that Adam’s career choices could be defined as successful (and should we care to examine further we would need sources back up that dubious assertion) , it is completely irrelevant to as the notability of the subject. Success or failure doesn’t factor. While I haven’t looked, I would be surprised not to find a number of BLP articles where consensus would agree that the subject had failed utterly at one or all career choices -- but was still notable nonetheless. What is the subject’s notability? According to the lead the subject “… is American model and author. She was the November 1992 Playboy Playmate”. What do the sources say about these aspects? Do they say anything of substance that indicates notability? The one source that actually talks about Adam in any meaningful detail is the one subject that Adam’s sock and meat puppets are trying to suppress. Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The kicker in my post above is the inclusion of "celebrity career." Poor career choices tend to increase celebrity. Regardless that you might feel that a celebrity person is unworthy of attention, they remain of interest to the public. That's just the nature of celebrity. Pkeets (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Now if only we can stop this perennial fight over the content of the article itself... Dismas|^(talk) 23:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and topic ban Fasttimes68 - This nomination is entirely unnecessary. The article was fairly recently re-written (by me) after a widely-reported lawsuit conclusion, with improved references and expanded information. I'm not sure how much of that remains, since there seems to be a constant low-level war to remove as much information as possible. Fasttimes68 has made off-wiki attacks against the subject of this BLP and continues to be a disruptive presence here. I am quite sure that the difficulties with this article would evaporate if they were topic banned. Enough is enough. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation that I ran an attack site is a flat out lie, which DC has repeated several times without evidence. Put up or shut up time DC. Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a lie at all - you wrote an attack article against the subject - I read it myself - its been deleted now but I read it and Delicious Carbuncle is no liar. - Youreallycan 04:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are both liars then. I never ran an attack site. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liar liar pants on fire - Youreallycan 04:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for a topic ban for Fasttimes68 are not new; we've had them in AN/I archive 717, AN/I archive 744, and AN/I archive 758. As far as I can be bothered to read, these have never been approved. If you want to make the suggestion again, then WP:AN/I might be a more suitable place. But I for one wouldn't be persuaded by a repetition of the old charge (about a blog entry in the past) plus the alleged lack of need for an AfD. ¶ Fasttimes68 continues to be a disruptive presence here. Brusquely telling another editor to look through the talk page archives when these had been "courtesy blanked" (and would be interminable even if restored) was not constructive. And this AfD is annoying, because every AfD is annoying. (Particularly to the [re]creator of the article in question -- even if this recreator actually invited an AfD, whether or not he was muttering "Make my day" as he wrote the invitation.) I see nothing else. ¶ I am quite sure that the difficulties with this article would evaporate if [Fasttimes68] were topic banned. I am not. The history of the article and the talk page shows plenty of Fasttimes68-irrelevant silliness. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some info for those concerned. Mention has been made of past problems in the talk page. This material isn't particularly easy to see, as the talk archive has been "courtesy blanked". However, you can see it here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. WP:AFD starts: Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately. The nomination doesn't ask for deletion; it asks for redirection. Undoubtedly a "bold" conversion of this article into a redirect would cause a ton of bricks to fall on the converter. Therefore AfD seems a sensible route: people can argue openly and later can be seen to have done so. Or is it? The last time this was done for this article, the result was The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#November. Pretty clear, yet I don't see any sign of agreement having been reached to reverse this when AniMate resuscitated the article (minus its history) for Delicious carbuncle to work on and re-create. No doubt both AniMate and Carbuncle meant well, and I'm not overly upset if the result of one AfD was simply ignored (as it seems). But before people participate in yet another AfD, they might like to know (and I would like to know) whether there's any point in doing so. So: (1) Is this AfD the right place to discussed a proposed conversion into a redirect? (2) If so, and if this AfD is allowed to reach a result, will the result be regarded as meaningful (a change to it requiring DRV or similar), or can it later be overturned by one or two editors who wish to overturn it? -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, the article history goes back to 2005, so I'm not sure I understand your "(minus its history)" comment. As for the redirect result, it was redirected. I chose to rewrite the article not because I feel that this is such a vitally important topic, but because redirecting made the problems move to edit wars over inclusion of Adams in list articles. There was a temporary peace, until Fasttimes68 decided to start editing the article and being obstructive on the talk page again. Given all of the astonishingly trivial bios on WP, this one receives far more attention than it deserves, and that attention appears to be motivated by animus toward the subject, not by any serious concerns about what is in the article. Whether or not this ends in a keep, a redirect, or a delete, or is moved to another forum, the fact that Fasttimes68 is the one proposing it is concerning to me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article history (bar just two edits that I'm aware of) certainly does exist. I was under the impression that only the latest (pre-AfD) edit was restored to the temporary page in your userspace, that the older edits were restored after your version was moved back to article space, and that you therefore didn't have access to them. I may be wrong about this (I'm not sure how I might check this, but anyway don't much want to do so). I'll assume that I am wrong (for one thing, your memory is likely to be more vivid than mine). Sorry about the mistake. ¶ A look in the current talk page shows that deletion, or an AfD, was something at least contemplated (and not dismissed) by Milowent, Enric Naval, the Rambling Man, and, rather clearly: If someone thinks that notability is still an issue, then they are welcome to start an AfD [...], made on 23 April by some fellow called Delicious carbuncle. The history of the article bears this out: article moved to article space on 21 April; edit summaries till 23 April (for edits by Fasttimes68, but also others) showing concern about the legitimacy of the restored article. Much later (02:58, 4 August), but 11 hours before the AfD was started, Milowent wrote why don't we delete this whole article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the question, one editor can overturn a merge or redirect AfD result, and can do so three days after the AfD is closed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh Day Christians - Norway. Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suffering from caffeine deficiency, but rightly or wrongly it seems to me that one redirect was turned into a different redirect. -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, I suggest that you (and other editors) read the discussion at Talk:Stephanie_Adams#April_2012_article_recreation discussion (paying close attention to my comments to Fasttimes68 in April). This was discussed at some length then. When I suggested that someone could start and AfD, I likely meant a good-faith deletion nomination, not Fasttimes68. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article - Although I'm probably not as experienced as some of the other contributors, here is my opinion, for what it's worth. The subject, to me is a notable one. As previously mentioned, she had a celebrity profile as a playboy bunny, which was increased by her coming out as a lesbian, at the time the first in the magazine's history. She subsequently had a high profile law suit against the NYPD that took six years to finish, when to court and that resulted in jury award of damages far in excess of what even her attorney had requested. The details of the case were reported both in the US and in the UK. Her career has also included publishing books, for which reputable sources appear. The literary merits of these would seem to be slightly beside the point (IMHO), as they are just one part of a larger article. In addition, as I mentioned previously, the New Jersey guardianship case does merit inclusion, as it was case linking in to her childhood when her guardian became her ward. As a reader, this struck me as quite interesting and worth reading about. Finally, from reading the comments and some of the history, I get the impression that the motivation of one contributor - Fasttimes68 - seems to be based on the subject of the article, rather than the merits of the material. Fbell74 (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has confirmed they have been paid for their work here: [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just now reverted deletion of the comment by Fbell74 immediately above. The edit summary for its deletion read Undid revision 505836793 by Fbell74 (talk) editor is a paid meatpuppet of indef sock. Fbell74 was not blocked at the time, and was not blocked as of mere seconds ago. If any contributor here appears to be a puppet of a blocked editor, get that user blocked as a puppet before even thinking of deleting the contribution. -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[2] I'll file an SPI within 24 hrs. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Good find in "freelancer.com" (a new name to me). But yes, you file your charges (wherever seems most appropriate), they're acted upon by people who are uninvolved here, and then (if the conclusion is damning) somebody may delete the contribution. But this somebody probably shouldn't be you. (In the meantime, provision here of a link to this, with a scrupulously neutral and polite comment, would I think be acceptable.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, and I would suggest to not revert his comment but strike it or collapse it in a box, as these are more proper actions in such cases. Cavarrone (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this comment in the 'Consensus' section but am reposting as it seems appropriate - In reference to my comment, I can only reiterate what I said above [Consensus section], which is that the sources I found supported my comments regarding including the New Jersey guardianship case, the lawsuit against NYPD and her involvement with LGBT issues. The opinions I expressed were my own. If the source material had not be present I would not have made the comments.Fbell74 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable, per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Nom is suggesting to redirect, not delete, so this wasn't a valid AfD anyway.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Warning: certain opinions may be paid for. Here (WebCite) is "Custom Project for Archangelseven - Wikipedia - Stephanie Adams", which (if I understand correctly) is being (or was) undertaken by "fbell74" (a name that also appears both above and here) for "Archangelseven". fbell74 isn't merely adding encyclopedic information; he's also adding opinion. See "Work in Progress | Custom Project Aug 3 2012 20:51:15" within this page (WebCite): We would like to offer you more than the $20 you were due. We only ask that you make one or two comments, if needed, in the talkpage the next coming days. It might not be necessary, but if you can add in the talk page that you feel your edit and addition about the NJ guardianship should remain, that would suffice. Concensus thus far is that it be added, as long as you include that you agree. For the additonal $10, that is all we need. ("Account of archangelseven has been closed"; I hope that the payment is forthcoming.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed BLP violation and personal atackFasttimes68 (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks about the subject of the article --Guerillero | My Talk 06:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paid to comment -- lol, I'm totally *not* shocked about shenanigans like this around this article. The pattern has been obvious for a long time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Up here in the northern hemisphere, it's too warm for snow. I'm still undecided. WP:BASIC has been cited above; ~~here's what it says~~however, WP:BASIC is merely one section within Wikipedia:Notability (people), the start of which says after footnote-stripping: Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. If this is so, then noteworthiness rather than notedness is the key. For SA, the former isn't obvious to me. WP:GNG has also been cited, and this does emphasize notedness. But it also wants detailed coverage, and although much is alluded to for SA, little is available. It seems to me that she's borderline: you could reasonably make a case for an article or a redirect (to the equivalent of a short article). The article has been chronically troublesome, and the very recent evidence of paid edits (see above) does nothing to suggest that those days are past. I'd like to see more open-minded, intelligent commentary before a close. -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC) ..... corrected (via ~~strikethrough~~ and underlining) per Cavarrone (below) Hoary (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to correct you, but this is what WP:BASIC says: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Nothing more, nothing less. Cavarrone (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Thank you and apologies for my carelessness. Go to the top of that same page, however, and you'll see that it says what I said it says. -- Hoary (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep She is notable and can meat WP:BLP and WP:GNG. She has many works, and a well-known writer that has many books and articles in many websites and journals, she have even a novel and her own publishing company. I guess the exceptional attention her article receives from Wikipedia editors also reflects this --aad_Dira (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992 - I came across this AfD after noticing suspicious editing activities by a contributor. However, the only thing that has changed since the previous AfD was that Adams finally won a lawsuit that has been ongoing since 2006. The debate over her very borderline notability and possible COI have already been had in the AfD discussion in late 2011. The WP:IRS about her pre-2006 activities seem very tenuous. To recreate a contentious article based on a WP:ONEEVENT lawsuit seems completely wrong to me. To be honest, it is also churlish to criticise the nominator for bringing this to AfD, since they were told to do this by the article's supporters after trying on several occasions in April 2012 to re-redirect it. Hope that makes sense! Sionk (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why are we doing this again? She has extensive news coverage for various reasons and incidents, with a fair amount of it about her specifically and not because of an incident, such as the Curve Magazine coverage. She passes WP:N, simple as that. Silver seren^C 11:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think someone who nominates an article for deletion, while at the same time removing content which may give evidence for the subject's notability, probably should get a block. Cla68 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would of course need more discussion. I agree that this suggests a wp:battleground attempt to "win". But another way to look at this is from the viewpoint of consensus–removing material might be considered to be acknowledgment by the nominator that the nomination lacks merit on its own strengths. Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that notability is more than established. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Afd is another step in an harassment campaign against the subject. Unfortunately I am away from my computer for th week; but if someone could block fasttimes under BLP sanctions that would be great. If you do block please inform ARBCOM as they are looking into the matter more widely. -Errant ^(chat!) 14:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article already contains the required significant coverage in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#November. The previous AfD (on which also see these comments from the top) resulted in "redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#November"; and while the subsequent re-creation of the article was well intended it seems unfortunate. ¶ The subject seems to have had two careers and several other claims to notedness. The first career was (is?) modeling. Its peak seems to have been appearance as a "Playmate", which WP no longer regards as sufficient for an article. She certainly appeared elsewhere, and this has been mentioned in RSes. However, I don't think it has ever been discussed. The second career has been that of a writer. Her list of books is impressively long, and again they have been mentioned, but again they don't seem to have been discussed. They're self-published or come from vanity publishers: in itself, not damning, of course, but unlike books from (say) Farrar Straus Giroux or Secker & Warburg, their mere existence is not impressive. How, then, have they been received? I don't see commentary, and not a single book by her is known to Worldcat, so libraries don't seem interested. ¶ Outside her careers, there was some tabloidy excitement about her being lesbian, and then a bit more about her no longer being lesbian; and she's been in lawsuits, the most recent of which went very much in her favor. But these are merely incidental; and indeed it's arguable that the former is unencyclopedic. ¶ I'm willing to believe that I'm missing something. As I look through what's above, I note Silverseren's comment She has extensive news coverage for various reasons and incidents, with a fair amount of it about her specifically and not because of an incident, such as the Curve Magazine coverage. But as far as I know, the "Curve Magazine coverage" means just this: a short and very humdrum interview. ¶ It may be said that although no item mentioned above is particularly noteworthy, each is a bit noteworthy and they add up to noteworthiness. Fair enough. But reread what was said (and not denied) in the previous AfD about the chronic troublesomeness of this article (just one gem for your delectation). If this were all old, all would be well. But people don't seem to assume this. After the last AfD, OTRS trouble wasn't merely expected but actually anticipated. And bizarre practices continue: just three days ago, "Archangelseven" was offering cash for the insertion of opinion in the article's talk page: see "Work in Progress | Custom Project Aug 3 2012 20:51:15" within this page (WebCite). -- Hoary (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: My primary purpose of this vote! is because the subject or people affiliated with her have edited this article time and time again over the years to make it look better, and some other folks try to put in other sketchy stuff. Its just not worthwhile to overturn the result of the last AfD, in my view.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG is unquestionably met based on the reliable and independent sources (all 28 0fthem). I can see from this discussion that there are issues with NPOV from some editors who appear to simply want to get this article deleted or add information that is negative towards Ms. Adams. This is simply an abuse of Wikipedia and the reason why it can be difficult to edit articles (as they cause them to get "fully protected"). I would definitely recommend a topic ban unless someone else already has --‎Jetijonez ^Fire! 15:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no longer any delete votes as Carrite has struck out his vote. As such this is now an obvious speedy keep.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the subject is allegedly paying for keep votes does not concern you?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would have some relevance if anyone was actually voting to delete the page. I would also have to assume a lot of bad faith to dismiss every keep vote based on such an allegation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also several 'votes' for re-redirecting. Though it seems the majority are content with resurrecting the article on a pretext... Sionk (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles get recreated all the time after deletion or being redirected at AfD. The current content of the article [3] is much better than at some times in the past, but I worry about it staying that way.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm totally uninvolved in this, so I have no axes to grind or agendas to push, but from everything that has been said so far it seems the subject's notability is well established. Prioryman (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This does not pass WP:GNG. The books are not notable nor make the subject notable. The lawsuit is again nothing special - many people have gotton money following police brutality and the fact of coming out does not hold water - it looks like just another publicity stunt. I think that this article is not only not notable - but down right disruptive. BO | Talk 23:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing isn't the fault of the article. Pkeets (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2012 (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.