Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexus Locklear (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 delete. No prejudice towards redirection to a suitable target. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lexus Locklear

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG Finnegas (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexus Locklear. The article should probably be expanded, though. Nymf(talk) 20:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. MichaelQSchmidt's rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexus Locklear is amongst the most obviously flawed rationale I have seen at AFD! WP:ENT does not apply to this individual as she is not one of the following "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities" but a pornstar! so WP: PORNSTAR. ie Pornbio applies. Finnegas (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Excuse me for addressing your attack, but my argument was not flawed per the guidelines as existed four years ago. Personally, I think Wikipedia would be far better off to censor itself and remove article on ALL porn topics, but your own argument that someone who is an actor should not be consider for their acting is itself flawed. Acting IS acting... no matter the choice of medium... and despite any personal opinion toward that medium. And it is rare the any minor SNG would overule the parent notability guideline. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this time (sorry Nymf)... as possible sources toward article improvement have themselves been found inappropriate. Being unsouracble per revised standards, it is pretty much as if this person does not exist. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Side note: Finnegas, if you don't like pornography, it might be best if you stay away from these kinds of discussions because it makes it difficult for you to be objective. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Erpert, stop casting aspersions on editors whose positions you disagree with. You've been warned about this, over and over, by multiple editors, and your refusal to stop these NPA/CIVIL/AGF violations is disruptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only independent two sources are nothing but passing mentions. Not even the birth date is reliably sourced. Nothing useable here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's and FPAS's arguments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2013 (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.