Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laci Green


 * 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. Michig (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Laci Green

 * – ( View AfD View log  Green )

Article does not establish WP:NOTABILITY of subject, and primarily relies on blog posts, much of which is attributed to the subject herself. Coverage in RSs appears to be cursory. - Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has more primary sources than I'd like, but it's fine; WP:BLPSELFPUB allows their use.  Green has more than enough coverage to satisfy the GNG:, , , .  I would think that most articles that I've edited would be fairly safe from deletion, as I'm hardly an inclusionist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I don't know that that really establishes her notability. The article is more than half stuff which is sourced to her - the only things which aren't are that she is a sex educator who has given lectures at several universities (which is sourced to kind of meh sources), that she is a host of DNews, that she was the target of harassment, that her videos have been watched a bunch on YouTube, and that she was on Dr Phil. That's... it, really. I'm not sold on her being notable - I have no doubt that she is mentioned in RSs, but the coverage doesn't seem to really establish notability and the article doesn't really seem to do so either, as it is half background biographical information, and very light on why she is actually a notable person - nothing really mentioned on the article says to me "this person is notable" or "this person is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia." The non-biographical information is just a listing of random stuff about her which was mentioned somewhere on the internet, rather than a coherent article about an important person. Merely being mentioned by the press or showing up on TV is insufficient for notability. I'm not seeing what about this person presented in the article is notable, and this article has been around for months. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Most articles on YouTube celebrities are horrible, and I've been working on several lately. This one was even worse before I started; I admit that I haven't done a very good or thorough job (yet), but current article status isn't a reason to delete.  The important thing is that reliable sources have taken note of her. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per NinjaRobotPirate, Passes GNG, The article does need improvements but that's never a reason to delete .– Davey 2010 •  (talk)  19:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per NinjaRobotPirate. Not the greatest nomination - David Gerard (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG., --Neil N  talk to me 20:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per NinjaRobotPirate. Needs improvement. (She spoke at the University of Sydney this week; maybe that could be added.) Catobonus (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep See also this Huffington Post-article. Achievements in media can be problematic to pass notability. To draw the line to the absurd: with the same reasoning, we should delete the Walter Cronkite-article, since just reading the news is not news-worthy itself. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep Laci Green!!!

Laci Green produces some of the best videos for young women and men on YouTube. The persons who are recommending deletion of her blogs on Wiki are doing so because they don't like what Laci Green is doing to inform young people about human sexuality. If anyone finds her YouTube videos offensive, it's because they probably don't like the messages she is communicating in her videos. They probably have differences of opinion as to what should or should not be included in sex education for young people. She does her messages in a very decent and creative way that gets the point across. Under no circumstances whatsoever can her videos and her messages be considered as being "pornographic". They definitely aren't. As a parent with grown children, I wish that Laci Green had been around when my children were younger. She does a superb job!! Keep up the good work, Laci Green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railwaybob (talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 September 2014‎ (UTC)
 * 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.