Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily LaBeau

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Lily LaBeau}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lily_LaBeau Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Lily LaBeau}})

Interviews and fluff do not equal notability of the quality we expect for a living biography. Award wins no longer count. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Yeah, the rationale of the nomination shows the nominator didn't do WP:BEFORE and check if there are additional sources out there that make her notable. She is extensively written about in these sources and passes the GNG [https://www.vocativ.com/news/256579/james-deen-new-allegations/index.html][https://jezebel.com/three-years-was-enough-time-evil-angel-decides-to-welc-1832120131][https://jezebel.com/the-fallout-to-my-career-was-devastating-speaking-out-1829501779] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• :1 interview about abuse from James Deen, 2 similar 3 a single quote. These are only useful in an article about James Deen as there is no real.bio about this person except that Deen abused her on set. If that's all we have then we can't base an article on it as it's a BLP vio through being UNDUE. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• ::"They are not straight interviews or straight primary sources disqualifying notability. The journalists in each article synthesizes the information and writes about the person. Journalists from more reputable sources are ethically required to do fact checking and do not just take everything the person says at face value." I don't believe it is a BLP UNDUE violation to have a short summary of her career along with the allegations of abuse. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Delete interviews do not count towards GNG and single quotes do not either. This is no where near passing GNG so we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable, doesn't pass GNG. --NL19931993 (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. This is an encyclopaedia and not some random collecton of information. -The Gnome (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.