Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenora Claire


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lenora Claire

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Strong deleteSeveral problems exist that cannot be remedied. Firstly, the main editor (the page's subject Lenora Claire) is unable to provide any substantiation for the majority of claims made (major modeling contracts, 200 articles, interviews etc) and abuses editors who seek to remove unsourced claims. Where sources are in existence, they are almost entirely along the lines of weblogs or online gossip sites -- which violates wikipedia policy on valid sources. Additionally, the main editor/subject, is unwilling to not see this page as a glorified CV which she retains ownership of and can control the content of. I see that she previously created another page publicising one of her events that was deleted as blatant advertising. I think Ms Claire views wikipedia as essentially no different from Myspace and this article -- fatally flawed as it is -- reflects that Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While some new references have been added and some unsubstantiated claims dropped (and user LenoraClaire seems to be inactive at the moment) the major flaws of the article -- and the fatal ones -- remain.
 * The sources are almost entirely one of two types: trivial, passing mentions or mentions in unreliable sources (zines, blogs, gossip sites)
 * I believe that the best possible sources have been found based upon the great deal of effort users LenoraClaire and DogTownClown have expended (and one of them -- LenoraClaire -- is the subject -- I am sure she will know of any and all relevant press/refs)
 * The article has grave verification issues (this is related to the first problem)
 * The subject fails to meet WP:CREATIVE standards of notability as a model and a writer and a curator.
 * There are no compelling reasons to give this article a pass from normal notability standards. I know DogTownClown argues Claire is unusual and interesting. Maybe she is; but we need more than that to warrant an encyclopedia article I am afraid. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: How does that extremely high standard - WP:CREATIVE - reconcile with the fact that Wikipedia routinely includes scores of biographies of "people who are relatively unknown ("non-public figures")"? - from here WP:NPF - "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." A generally well known person would be a "public figure", no one here is trying to imply that Lenora Claire is a household name, a public figure, or famous - but it seems that all the argument against her bio page are aimed in that direction, ie "she's not well known", "she's only had 3 events covered in the media", "she's only written articles for one magazine", "she's only mentioned in one bestselling book", etc. etc. Dogtownclown (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Really? They all seem aimed at showing that she fails known critera for notability. You seem to just say that shes unusual and interesting (see below). And then garbnish that with OTHERTHINGSEXIST for good measure. Its really hard infact to get a handle on what your arguments are as they chop and change akll the time (here Angelyne is the benchmark, there shes too high). 12.162.2.182 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above is a sincere and honest questioning, I'd really like to know how this all works. Dogtownclown (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment: Writing 200 articles for the same publication - one of the most noteworthy accomplishments in the article - it not in itself noteworthy at all. There are thousands of staff writers for magazines and newspapers worldwide who have published ten times that number of articles. Hairhorn (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems to me that the more noteworthy point is the famous celebrities who were interviewed in these articles. Also, writing 200 articles for a publication is far more noteworthy than, say, writing one or two or a dozen. Dogtownclown (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No. When you write magazine articles, a good portion of them will be about noteworthy people - artists, actors, musicians. There are thousands of working journalists who have written more articles about people more noteworthy. That doesn't make them worth an encyclopedia entry. As for 200 being more notable than a dozen, so what? Hairhorn (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You assume that her writing is the most noteworthy accomplishment. That is your opinion.  Another opinion might hold that she is more noteworthy as an cutting-edge art curator in the cut throat LA art world, who happens to also be a journalist. Dogtownclown (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're going to concede that the writing isn't notable, you can probably stop debating me... Hairhorn (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't notable at all, did I do that? I said that I don't consider it the most noteworthy accomplishment.  I do think it's notable that she seems a jack-of-all-trades, a renaissance person, many faceted, etc.  Dogtownclown (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On that note: I think she would not be notable if she were just a writer, or just a model, or just an art curator, or just a celebrity of sorts in the LA art/film world, but the fact that she is all of these things makes her a little unusual and interesting, ie noteworthy. Dogtownclown (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I only addressed a narrow issue about journalism, there's no point debating me with points about curating or other achievements. Also, do minor, non-noteworthy achievements add up to make one noteworthy one? This debate has gone on before. See Articles_for_deletion/Mai_Griffin. Hairhorn (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All one has to do is enter "Lenora Claire" in to Google to verify all of the claims are true. Information can be confirmed by following links to LA Times articles, LA Weekly articles, MTV.com articles, BoingBoing.net, TMZ.com, IMDB.com, WireImage, Getty Images, and the Associated Press. All one has to do is put in the tiniest bit of effort to confirm all of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenoraclaire (talk • contribs) 06:09, May 17, 2009
 * There are plenty of references listed in this article. Implying that this article is "fatally flawed" or that there are problems that "cannot be remedied" are CLEAR INDICATIONS that this is some sort of personal vendetta being played out on Wikipedia.  Dogtownclown (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
 * Please assume good faith, Dogtownclown, and tone down your rhetoric. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate the personal attack. I have been active on the wikipedia since 2007 and have made many hundreds of edits to artciles related to numerous fields. I have also created or heavily improved a number of pages. You -- I see -- have not; but feel free to leave all manner of attack comments on my motives. Please, address the issues and keep the name calling on the play ground. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did address the "issues" sir. Again, the article is NOT "fatally flawed".  It can be improved, sure, but why the big push to have it deleted?  Dogtownclown (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Actually, you didn't. You just asserted that there were "plenty" of references and accused me of some vendetta. The issue -- as I see it -- is that the subject is NN and sources (that aren't blogs or gossip sites) do not exist to show otherwise. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 07:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * MTV News and LA Weekly are sourced in the article (that's 'plenty' for a stub class article). Other sources like The Los Angeles Times are not used in the article, though they could and should be. Adding a 'citation needed' here and there could help improve the article I think.  "Fatally flawed" is an overstatement in my opinion.Dogtownclown (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The problem with that line of argument is that the MTV article isn't about her -- she is merely interviewed as a participant in a show. It does nothing to establish notability. I cannot see the LAWeekly ref in the article. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The LA Weekly article is the THIRD REFERENCE listed. http://www.laweekly.com/2008-01-10/la-vida/world-of-wonder-gallery-where-camp-meets-vamp/ - quite amazing that you "cannot see" it.Dogtownclown (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please tone down the personal abuse, rudeness, and rhetoric. Other editors have also asked you. It does nothing for your cause and indeed hurts it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just added another reference from the Los Angeles Times which shows this woman is in fact a mover and a shaker in LA art scene. These are high profile events that she is producing in the second largest city in the US.  Dogtownclown (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Noteworthy: writing more than 200 articles in a successful publication, one that has been printed and distributed for more than 28 years in one of the world's largest cities, and interviewing some very famous people is good for starters.Dogtownclown (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No. notability Uncle G (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From the page you linked: "A lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably-sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia." Dogtownclown (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Also for the page you linked: "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article.... It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute."Dogtownclown (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is legitimate. There are plenty of references and material is already out there on the web to substitute any of the claims made on this wiki bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniimotek (talk • contribs) 06:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)  —  Aniimotek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Okay, at user LenoraClaire's urging I looked at all these supposed google hits that will be just fine as replacements for real secondary sources. Number one of the top ten is this wikipedia article and another five are created by her: e.g. livejournal, myspace, flickr etc. As an aside I note that one of the top ten is her twitter where, interestingly she is trolling her friends for help in supporting this articles keeping. Apparently "even with all of my links to various press some stalker creep is trying to delete my wikipedia page. Can anyone help?" This doesn't seem to me to be appropriate behavior by a wikipedia editor interested in actually developing an encyclopedia. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is highly inappropriate behaviour. She should undo what she has done and refrain from doing it again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage in third-party sources. Anyone smell socks? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 10:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Show me the money: significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO, not all of these irrelevant articles written or blogs or MySpace or anything else that doesn't meet WP:RS, isn't about the subject, or is trivial.  If notability can't be demonstrated the article should be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the second paragraph on the page you linked WP:BIO "This notability guideline for biographies is not policy", again, I believe that the article meets the criteria for a biography stub.Dogtownclown (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The qualifiers "significant" and "in-depth coverage" are not found on the page you linked - reliable sources Dogtownclown (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Ok, from WP:BIO, this is close to what you were saying Drawn Some: "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."

Notice that the qualifiers are "significant", "interesting", "or unusual enough".... not all 3 together, but any one of the three.

Also, "This notability guideline for biographies is not policy" (in other words, it's not a hard and fast rule). Dogtownclown (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Scroll down just a wee bit in WP:BIO to the part that says "Basic criteria" as a section title. It's okay to ignore rules and policy and guidelines but only for good reason. It also liable to get reversed by consensus, which is what is happening now, someone created an article that probably didn't meet notability requirements and editors are deciding whether or not it should stay.  Like I said, show me the reliable sources etc. as above. Drawn Some (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The "good reason", as I see it, would be that this is an "interesting" person, and a person "unusual enough" to be included (2 of 3 notability requirements), in my opinion. There are reliable sources posted in the article, I've even added some myself.  As far as someone thinking it "probably didn't meet notability requirements", that has been addressed as well - from WP:NOTE: "A lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably-sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia." and "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article.... It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute."  Also, keep in mind that "consensus" is decided by the weight of arguments, not on the number of people raising concerns. Dogtownclown (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Clean up
I've spent a little time doing some research and editing/pruning the article. I've also added some information and sources which bolsters the article's notability, it is clearly "interesting" and "unusual enough" to be included in this encyclopedia as a biography stub - in my opinion. Dogtownclown (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment -- appreciate the hard work - as I'm sure everyone does - but some of the refs being added aren't really reliable sources from the wikipedia perspective (online mags/websites). Lots of non-reliable refs and cites may look impressive but still don't establish notability. For a pretty good summary of what is needed I would review the comments of Ricky81682 and others. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And in turn, some of the references are good. I added a Los Angeles Times article (a reliable source) as well as a mention of Claire in a book which uses her as one of 3 examples of "goth" fashion models working in the world today. Dogtownclown (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has been flagged for rescue
"All too often, an article about a perfectly notable topic lies wounded, badly written, unsourced – but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion? No! Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement. Improvement is the opposite of deletion. An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed. Some writer worked hard on that article. Some reader can use that article. Those writers and readers, if reached out to, can help us preserve this worthwhile content."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron

I agree! Anyone want to help? Dogtownclown (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As the editor who tagged the article for rescue, I'd advise would-be rescuers that the best way to save this article is to find and provide evidence of third party coverage of her in respectable publications. Examples of this would be a story found via a Google News search for "Lenora Claire" which devoted multiple paragraphs to Claire's work, or a scan of an article about Claire in an offline reputable magazine. Making unsubstantiated claims that the subject has been featured in reliable sources does not impress anyone, nor do claims about the subject's importance. From the debate so far, it's clear that those favouring deletion have made the stronger case thus far, and I say that as an editor sympathetic to rescue efforts. Regards,  Skomorokh   21:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The first thing the clean-up team should do is confirm her age, IMDB doesn't count as a reliable source for that. Drawn Some (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I can only assume that it is not possible (given that the attempted clean-up has left this untouched). I think that this is merely another indication of lack of notability. A truly notable person's birth date/place could be quite easily confirmed from reliable sources with little effort. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Aren't birth dates usually published in biographies or autobiographies? Isn't it highly unusual for a news article or an interviewer of any sort to mention someone's birth date, especially a woman? The date of someone's birth seems pretty trivial in my humble opinion. 166.77.103.133 (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the LA Weekly articles (there are several online and a couple linked in the article) does devote a few paragraphs to Claire's work - http://www.laweekly.com/2008-01-10/la-vida/world-of-wonder-gallery-where-camp-meets-vamp/ . Is the LA Weekly not considered a reliable source?  Many of it's writers, including the one who penned this article, also write for the Los Angeles Times (Lina Lecaro has since 2000).  Hell, some of these writers have won a Pulitzer Prize.  As far as I can tell Lina Lecaro is one of a handful of experts on the LA fashion, art, and music scene.  Dogtownclown (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Can someone explain to me how the above is not a reliable source. I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know.  Thanks.  Dogtownclown (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * (1) I believe the LA weekly is reliable, which is defined at WP:RS. However, our concern is that coverage of her isn't particularly significant, and the tone doesn't indicate that it is independent or particularly professional (but that's a matter of judgment).  (2) is your argument now that because she's written with people who have won Pulitzer Prize, that's adequate?  That's not particularly strong, especially considering you earlier said that the number of articles she's written isn't significant.  Is she famous as an article, a writer, a model, what?  There are very specific standards for all of those types of notability.  Claiming she's generally well-known isn't productive  (3) the WP:SPA designation isn't an insult, it just indicates that you aren't someone who seems to have a grasp of the entire encyclopedia, especially the policies as a whole.  These rules have been built up over years and years of discussion, and they are somewhat complex.  (4) Please stop with the "there are several sources out there" arguments, and your general antagonism.  Your tone and rhetoric isn't helping.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering the question. There seems to be some confusion... I was indicating that some writers for LA Weekly are Pulitzer winners because I thought people were saying that the LA Weekly isn't a reliable source.  I didn't say that Claire wrote anything with a writer for the paper.  My argument is that she seems to be a notable person, a person of interest, an unusual subject - from what I read, those are a legitimate criteria for determining if a person is noteworthy - a step or two above whether she's famous or well known (right?).  Dogtownclown (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My argument is that she seems to be a notable person, a person of interest, an unusual subject. Based on what?  We don't go on mere speculation and gut feelings.  That falls under original research and would be a nightmare in terms of consistency (as the early years of this project were), so we go by, "are there independent third-parties that discuss her significantly?"  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm basing it on what I read in the LA Weekly articles referenced in the wiki entry, the writer claims things such as "(Claire's) show gave the gallery its first taste of real media frenzy". I'm not basing it on a gut feeling, there seems to be some real excitement about what this lady is doing. Dogtownclown (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, generally, an encyclopedia focuses on people who are notable because of what they have done, not on what they may do. I have to follow the group that disagrees about her notability, although probably a little biased since I both am from the LA region, am used to people like Claire, and am dealing with another article that has both the same COI concerns and the same notability issues.  However, you are still free to have your opinion and you are free to try to convince anyone else who comes here of that.  Again, though, assume good faith with others and keep the rhetoric down.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that direct links to images at the LA Weekly (like here like this citation) are really frowned upon and make the LA Weekly looks like a reliable source and more like an unreliable blog. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ricky81682, Could you clarify your comment here? I am attempting to help clean this up where I can, but not sure what you saying here. Ericboyd (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per my discussion above. Coverage is at best passing and feels like a sort of synthesis of reliable and non-reliable sources into making some attempt at notability, but not enough.  Sources that are reliable mostly are on the "Golden Gals" exhibit which is not enough for notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have to kindly disagree once more with your assessment that the subject isn't noteworthy. I don't believe that I or the article I just quoted implies that her notability rests on what this woman "may do" but on what she has done.  She is causing a stir, at this very moment, in the LA art scene.  Los Angeles is not an easy place to gain attention, as you should know, everyone and their mother is fighting for the spotlight.  The fact that an "expert" on the art scene in Los Angeles (the LA Weekly writer) is gushing about her speaks volumes, in my opinion. Dogtownclown (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Note that this is a discussion and not a vote.  There have been times where the closing admin ignored the "votes" and overruled based on which person had the better arguments.  There's still plenty of time.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. I cannot speak to the writing but a curator by profession and one of note would nave more than 3 shows in 2 years... or is it 3 shows in 3 years? Its not clear. Plus, notable curators (a few have articles here) also generally have numerous publications in art monographs, journals etc. Also how does the art sell?  This is incredibly important. Fini12 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC) contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I think these criterea are the relevant ones:WP:CREATIVE
 * Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries
 * Comment I think its pretty hard for an editor to say that the subject of this article satisfies any of the above statements.Fini12 (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No real evidence of notability, just the occasional publicity stunt and lots of online self-promotion. An Angelyne-wannabe for the social-networking set, a long way from any real success. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you bring up Angelyne, who has a wikipedia article of course, and whose only achievement has been purchasing billboards of herself. I'd argue that this young lady Lenora Claire is far more interesting and has accomplished more in just a few short years than Angelyne's 30 years of doing absolutely nothing.  As I understand it, being a "success" isn't a requirement for being a person of interest on wikipedia, I think the lack of success on Angelyne's part goes towards proving that. Dogtownclown (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument for keeping an article. Whether Angelyne does or doesn't deserve a place in the wikipedia has no bearing on this article's validity. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it doesn't. But it might show something else... Angelyne's wiki page has only 2 references.  One from the entertainment section of LA Times (Claire has an LA Times reference from the same section of the paper, with the same amount of info - as well as a few from the LA Weekly) and Angelyne's only another reference is from TMZ, which is not being considered a reliable source for Claire.  Just a thought to consider. Dogtownclown (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- if you think the Angelyne article unencyclopedic or wanting in some way, you are free to edit it or indeed to bring it here as an AfD. This; however, is not a discussion about the Angelyne article (although a news search reveals more than 3 LA Times articles fully about the woman) it is about the validity of this article. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid. The invalid comparisons are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales. When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc." Dogtownclown (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I must disagree again Bigdaddy1981. The validity of Angelyne's article is relevant to this discussion. Please re-read the above, "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." This intro paragraph from the page you wanted me to read specifically says legitimate comparisons shouldn't be disregarded simply for the reason, the exact reason, you are stating that they should be disregarded for. Dogtownclown (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, although I think a discussion of Angelyne is best done on that article's talk page; I will say that I am hesitant to compare Angelyne to Lenora Claire. A google books search turns up a chapter on Angelyne in "Claims to Fame" by Joshua Gamson (Univ. of Cal. Press), an entry in something called "Jane & Michael Stern's Encyclopedia of Pop Culture", and more than passing reference to her in John Waters' "Crackpot". Moving on to news media, I can find a score (can't be bothered to count them) of articles in the LA Times alone with the first several (stopped reading them) being entirely about her. This all within about 10 minutes of searching. So, I don't really think that a comparison to Angelyne is all that helpful to the current debate and the presence of (even a poor) article on Angelyne sets no precedent for one on a (frankly) lesser light like Claire.Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just located a book, the 2009 update of the wildly popular "L. A. Bizarro: The All New Insider's Guide to the Obscure, the Absurd, and the Perverse in Los Angeles", previously a best-selling book in LA - #1 Non-Fiction in the LA Times - which features Lenora Claire, and actually dedicating a story to her. The pages aren't available online, do I need to scan these pages in and post them on the web? Or how does this work exactly?  Dogtownclown (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC).


 * Nope, that would be a copyright violation. Free feel to just cite the pages in the article, and mention the diffs here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazon shows that book as still unreleased --- publication date September 2009 --- but I'll take your word that Claire will be mentioned in it when it comes out. I wonder though if "featured" isn't overdoing it given the one page mention. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A one page mention in a best selling book is nothing to look down on the way I see it. Dogtownclown (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And it is actually more than a mere "mention" (I forgot to add). Dogtownclown (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The book is actually available after tomorrow May 20th at bookstores world-wide - http://www.chroniclebooks.com/index/main,book-info/store,books/products_id,7894/title,L.A.-Bizarro/ Dogtownclown (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Taken together, all the achievements would tend to show notability, but there is a real verifiability question here too. No prejudice against a new article if it overcomes these issues. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I guess it was a fair call to nominate this article at the time, but following improvements it now seems to meet WP:BIO several times over. From checking several other BLPs it doesnt seem that common to have a source to confirm age, and generally the article now seems much more densely referenced than average.  Seems nPOV to, one could easily have bigged up the subject from the existing references, the article now seems to be a fair reflection of Lenora's achievements. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Im not really sure what improvements have been made (aside from the largely cosmetic changes you made recently). No one still can show any notability, just a dense tangle of trivial mentions in largely unreliable sources - sure it looks well referenced but overwhelmingly the refs are online blogs, zines and gossip columns. Moreover, some of the references aren't even relevant! Two of the ref that purport to show that she's been in televsion programs have nothing to do with that. I really can see no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage. I cannot see she is notable as a model, a writer, or a curator -- or all three. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOTE: "A lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably-sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia" and "it is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic." Dogtownclown (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, its looks like ten new sources have been added by others since the Nom.  Now granted you'd be within your rights not to count them as improvements if this was an article for say a leading politician, as the sources arent generally of the highest quality.  However  Reliable sources advises.

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand..
 * Sources like the books or latimes have editorial control, and they can reasonably be regarded as trustworthy for the subject at hand, which is an LA popular culture celeb with some global reach.  If you dont like the sources what better ones are there for popular LA  (sub) culture?  I still think this article easilly passes our notability criteria. The only problem that hasnt been resolved is that the subject hasnt apologized for her rude comments about some of our editors who were acting in good faith.  I suggest that any local US based editor could fix this problem, as going by the sources I read the subject would likely accept a spanking if she was approached in the right way. :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the global reach? I agree that these are likely the best sources available (given that a major editor of the article is user LenoraClaire and Dogtownclown apparantly somehow has access to unpublished books mentioning the subject); however, with few exceptions, all are trivial mentions, not about her, or of totally unreliable nature (zines, websites, etc). Perhaps one day Claire will have sufficient notability re. Angelyne and others but at the moment --- no. The most notable thing she's done seems to have been the Golden Girls parody and that was judged NN. In any case, I think I have exhausted my interest in this article . I am glad you see that editors who object to the article are working in good faith btw. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some global reach as in the appearance for France's Canal Plus, and the trans US appearances that show she's more than a local LA personality. Im sorry you've lost interest here and we wont have the chance to convince you this one's a keeper. At least thanks to your attention the article is vastly improved! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not verifiable, basically. Hipocrite (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which things are not verifiable, specifically? Dogtownclown (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost the entirety of the article is sourced directly or indirectly to the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This statement doesn't make sense to me. Can you put it in layman terms? Dogtownclown (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason the subject gets any press is that she gives good quote. The press is all "here's a good quote." Hipocrite (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * kinda like Dick Cheney. pohick (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not completely true. Many of the press mentions, as well as the book mention, are about the stir she's causing in the LA art world. Dogtownclown (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The reference section clearly links to MTV and elsewhere that mention the person. That makes them notable, by current guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  15:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest you read the refs. The MTV article isn't about her -- she is merely interviewed as a participant in a show. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. I removed the reference from the section it didn't apply to, but I kept it as a reference to her own art being curated, by another curator, for a show. Dogtownclown (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Added 2 references of Lenora Claire's writing as well as a citation backing up the assertion that the book she appears in is actually a #1 LA Times Bestseller. Dogtownclown (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How can it be a best seller if it is not yet released? Also, the reference to her at Fronteirs says she is an Editorial Assistant not an editor and is currently there? Are you sure about all these references? I think quality is better than quantity. Fini12 (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an updated printing of the book, which previously sold out. Also, the claim is that she's on the editorial staff, an editorial assistant is on staff.  Dogtownclown (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh huh -- well maybe this one will be a best seller, but you can't say it is a bestseller --- because it hasnt even been published yet! Fini12 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording I used in the article itself is pretty clear, "in the 2009 update to the bestselling book L. A. Bizarro: The All New Insider's Guide to the Obscure, the Absurd, and the Perverse in Los Angeles." Dogtownclown (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, feel free to reword things or add improvements, I'm not married to all the changes I've made. :) Dogtownclown (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Added references to a few articles I found of interviews Claire wrote for Frontiers Magazine. Dogtownclown (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed the claim of "written more than 200 articles" since I'm not sure how this can be verified. Dogtownclown (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: I found a press release from ManiaTV which references a TV episode on which Claire appeared. I believe I read somewhere on Wiki that press releases can be used as a citation, does anyone know for sure? Thanks. Dogtownclown (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found it here cite press release. Dogtownclown (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The curating thing is the only possible claim to fame since the modeling is limited to a handful of depictions by erotic artists and an appearance in a US Network campaign which is billed as being all about "Average Joes." In a few years, with greater accomplishments behind her -- curating more than 3 events, for example -- Claire might rate an entry. 208.78.120.69 (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOTE: "it is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic." In other words, I don't think we are required to wait for "greater accomplishments" to determine that this young lady is doing some notable things in the LA art world.  Or that  she herself is pretty unusual and interesting - ie, noteworthy. Dogtownclown (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * fixed typo. Dogtownclown (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment She gets mentioned in plenty of mainstream media, and is featured in a bestselling novel.   D r e a m Focus  03:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete is mentioned in a yet to be released update of an existing book? How nice. But behind all the puff, there isn't much there that establishes notability. There is also a problem with verification, since reliable sources don't treat the subject of this blp in any depth.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Reading over this discussion I can't help but find Miss Claire totally NN. The "accomplishments" listed are repetitive, inflated and not very noteworthy themselves  A curator should have more than 3 or 4 shows under their belt as well as art specific publications to their name.  A model should have more than 2 or 3 artists listed and none of them should fall under the "I asked 50+ people at random to sit for me and 40+ of them did"  This isn't modeling it's posing at random.  None of the other 40+ people would attempt a wiki article.  As to the international interest of the subject a short segment in a French made for TV doc about random things of passing interest in LA does not show international interest.  The book L.A. Bizarro the new edition is not available through Chronical (it's publisher) or any book seller until September 2009 - a quick check of Amazon shows it avail for pre order not purchase.  This begs two questions, one how can an unpublished source be used and two how did Dogtownclown receive copies of the pertinent materiel this far ahead unless he/she is the subject, author or works for the publisher any of which would be a COI.  To say it's the combination of her "achievements" is not a very good argument.  "Interesting" is a subjective word which is why there are guidelines that should be adhered to.  I feel for Miss Claire, she is obviously working hard to gain notoriety but that simply isn't enough for an encyclopedia entry.  Lest anyone shout "encyclopedia snob" there are pop culture articles that belong here this one just doesn't make the grade.   .  76.90.87.23 (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 09:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC) — 76.90.87.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Atomic Books has the release date as May 20, 2009 - http://www.atomicbooks.com/products/-/2395.html - Dogtownclown (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: She is more than a mere mention in the book, which was released yesterday btw.  She is a notable person in the LA art world, it might not seem important on a world-wide, earth-shattering level, but that is not the claim being made.  No one is saying she's a household name.  No one is implying that she is famous.  But she is what she is, a mover and a shaker in a colorful and thriving subculture.  As per the guidelines for a "relatively unknown person" WP:NPF, it seems she would qualify for a bio page. Dogtownclown (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Atomic says the book is not yet avail - it listed yesterday as a release date on their site but it cannot be purchased through them - it appears a mistake has been made as Amazon, Barnes and Noble and Chronicle all list Sept 09 as the release date see the publisher Chronicle: http://www.chroniclebooks.com/index/main,book-info/store,books/products_id,7894/  As to implying she is famous or important on a world wide level the reason that was broached was a previous comment regarding the Allez LA TV doc.  I didn't raise the subject merely refuted it.  BTW what exactly is a Mover and Shaker and how does having 3 or 4 shows demonstrate that?  It could be she is merely a flash in the pan. 3 or 4 TV commercials does not an actress make.  That is why additional accomplishments are needed here.  It's no insult to Miss Claire, she just needs to keep at it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.87.23 (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the wiki article I made it absolutely clear she is in "the forthcoming 2009 update" to the book. And the fact remains that this book is a quintessential guide to any and all colorful persons, places and things in LA. I doubt that the authors would have mentioned her at all if she were not notable.   Dogtownclown (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Comment yes in the article you comment it is upcoming but that still is not acceptable - it isn't useful as a source until it is published and I have amply proven it has not been - also here you repeatedly refer to the book as being published May 20 2009 and further you discuss it's contents. How do you know what is said about the woman in an unpublished book?  You can claim it says anything you like.  That doesn't make it valid.  Simply restating the same unsubstantiated claims repeatedly doesn't make them valid.
 * 'Answer As I understood it, the book was to be released on May 20th, I've shown where I got that silly notion. I know the contents because I spoke with the author of the book, who assured me of what he wrote and where it is located in the book. Perhaps adding a 'citation needed' tag will suffice for now?  I've given the new ISBN number and page number. Dogtownclown (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment --- reading the back on forth on this book I have the following take. The book is unpublished and basing the subject's inclusion in it on a conversation you had with the author (and please, don't take this the wrong way as I am not questioning the truth of your representations here) raises a huge verification problem here. I think the best thing is to remove the source and when it is release add it back. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, the information can be verified once the book is released and then I will restore the book citation. Dogtownclown (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Chronicle Books also had the release date of the book as May 20th (it changed over night) - here's a link to Google's cache of the book's page - http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:0NDt27LNJtsJ:www.chroniclebooks.com/index/main,book-info/store,books/products_id,7894/title,L.A.-Bizarro/+l.a.+bizarro+chronicle+books&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us - Dogtownclown (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood what I was saying. I said that no one is claiming that she's famous or important on a world-wide scale. Please read my previous comment again.  Dogtownclown (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment"Some global reach as in the appearance for France's Canal Plus, " this is the comment I was referring back to.
 * The guy said she was a local celeb with "some global reach" not that she was world famous. I can't put words in his mouth, but that's the way I read it. Dogtownclown (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * More clean up: Just tidied up the "Golden Gals Gone Wild" references - removed all blog citations. Dogtownclown (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Another addtion: Added citation and info on a show curated by Claire. Dogtownclown (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who questions if I am notable as a model I'd like to think that appearing on billboards in Times Square, having my face in the NBC window in Rockefeller center, appearing on subway ads all over NYC, as well as having my face in Vanity Fair Magazine, Variety, and multiple commercials for the USA Network Character project would qualify. If anyone would like they are free to visit my Model Mayhem profile and see all of my other modeling credits which include nation wide ads for Hot Topic as well. I have also appeared in over 30 music videos. As a writer, I was on staff at Frontiers magazine (easily verified) and have interviewed a wide range of celebrities. As a curator I honestly can't think of anyone in the art world who is written up from a wide range of media as TMZ and NPR. All of which can be found on the internet. My IMDB verifies the tv programs I have done as well. I've also been a guest multiple times on Sirius radio for Maxim magazine and Out Sirius Q. I also appear in multiple books such as American Character for the USA Network, Faces of Sunset Blvd, Vacation Standards, and the update to LA Bizarro. As a performer I've opened for the Dresden Dolls and played on stages all over LA. Again, anyone who took the time to google would know this. So if I appear in books, magazines, television, radio, ad campaigns, and perform wouldn't that qualify for a wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenoraclaire (talk • contribs) 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment reading a description of the USA Character project (http://www.usanetwork.com/characterproject/#/about/press) raises some questions in my mind to say the least. The theme of the project is that America is full of characters and the project seeks to celebrate "average joes" rather than professional models. Being photographes as part of this would seem to undermine claims of notability rather than increase them. Also, your "model mayham" site is not valid as a source. It would never be possible to verfiy the information in an article if it was based on materials controlled by the subject. After all, you are free to oput anything you want up there. 12.162.2.182 (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I understand the only things that are acceptable to "prove" facts here are news articles in mainstream newspapers, books published by major publishers, and the works/opinions of scholars. Photographic evidence is not acceptable - maybe someday it will be, but for now it's not. Dogtownclown (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A friendly warning (which you're probably aware of already) Lenora: this place frowns highly upon people writing their own wiki pages apparently. Thanks for your input above, when I find a little more time I'm going to try verifying the things you've offered.  Dogtownclown (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Another addition: Added a citation which shows Lenora Claire's age in 2007. Dogtownclown (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally non-notable outside the walled garden of a sub-set of the LA club scene. Fails verifiability and has no non-trivial sources. Likely vanity page created to bolster her Myspace etc. Only two editors dominate the edit hisotry DogTownClown and LenoraClaire and neither edit other articles.12.162.2.182 (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC) — 12.162.2.182 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's not all that unusual for one editor to dominate editing a page, especially a new one. I've also edited other pages with this account, including tagging a page for deletion, because it had no reliable references/sources, which did in fact get deleted.  I have an older account/username that I don't use any longer because my username was my real name and I was being harassed, but who I am and how long I've been editing is beside the point.  I've made vast improvements to this article, I've added some good citations, and I'm still working on this in my spare time at work.  It's the weekend now, but I will be adding more info as I document it.  From what I understand a person does not have to be a household name or be famous nationwide/worldwide in order to be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. In fact, Wikipedia routinely publishes articles on people who are "generally unknown" - WP:NPF .  It would be easy if articles were only done on famous public figures, who'd have to do any research?  Dogtownclown (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said Dogtown. Looks to me like you've already established that while Claire may not yet be an A list celebetrity,  she is fairly widely known and easily meets our inclusion criteria. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability and fame are not the same thing. Claire is neither. From reading the comments above its pretty clear that Claire's boosters (one of whom busrt in here claiming that another editor had a vendetta) and herself (who trolled it seemed for said boosters on her Twitter site -- see above) cannot come up with enough to create verifiable evidence of notoreity. She claims fame as (amongst otherthjings) a writer and curator so its clear that WP:CREATIVE is the crierion (indeed DogTownClown says that without her curating and writing she wouldnt be notable 'cause shes a Renaissance person). She fails that with flying colors. There seems to be a strong consensus that she is NN but as FeydHuxtable says --- thats for the closing admin to say. I dont envy his job given the masses of rep[etive "responses" this AFD has created. 12.162.2.182 (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment for closing Admin.    Hopefully you'll agree notability  is already well established, due to  extensive coverage in secondary sources. While not all of the highest academic quality, sources provided do have editorial control.   In case you count this as a borderline case,  can I please request you grant a stay of execution,  as it looks like this is due for the a close very soon and the subject has recently  added new claims that will need time to chase down? FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep while my hype meter is pegged, the Popular Culture WP:ENT "fan base" notability seems established to me. pohick (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The only real reference for the curatorship is a few paragraphs in one newspaper, & the coverage amounts to a gossip column more than a review. The modeling is notable only if there are sources to that effect, and I don't consider any of what is presented here as remotely reliable. PR only, and trying to use Wp to add to it. I discount when subjects want their articles out, as often due to excessive modesty--and as for this sort of campaign to keep it in,  just the reverse-- it's a almost perfect  evidence for promotional intent. If kept, trim to the small amount of material for which there is at least some kind of evidence. DGG (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of any participants not familiar with the DGGs excellent reputation,  its worth clarifying that when he says whats presented here isnt remotely reliable,  he can only be referring to unsourced information on this talk page.  He cant possibly mean the review in the LA Times, an awarding winning broadsheet with one of the highest circulations in the US.  Nor can he mean the extensive review of Lenora's curating work in the Daily Sundial  - while thats a university paper, its financially independent and has won professional awards, and DGG is himself on record as saying college papers are considered reliable. ( I just searched for "university paper reliable source" and DGG came up in the second result)
 * No ones disputing that Lenora likely has promotional intent, but equally hopefully no one judges her for that as US society positively encourages its artists to  self promote, and anyway the key issue is whether the subject is noteable, as seems to be the case per coverage in multiple reliable sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2009 (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.