Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexi Lowe (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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Lexi Lowe
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just employee-of-the-month-type tinfiol citations from her porn industry employers. No independent reliable sourcing beyond reported castlists. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails PORNBIO without significant awards. Fails GNG without substantial coverage by reliable sources. Most of the citations in the article are from unreliable sources. The reliable source citations are about a film she stars in. Of those, two are merely cast listings and the rest don't mention her at all. No non-trivial RS coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * keep the article is fairly new as stated on article history logs, article needs more time to be judged for deletion. Quality of the article seems good with neutral tone of language with no WP:PROMOTION material, as far the references are concerned the article follows the Wikipedia policy wp:soapbox which clearly states "Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science.Warrior (talk • contribs) 11:38, 29 April 2014‎ (UTC)
 * The subject's notability, not the article's neutrality, is in question here. Giving the article more time to establish notability will not help as significant coverage by reliable sources does not appear to exist. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * keep What needs to be kept in mind here is that Lowe is a UK performer, she is notable in her field within the UK and should therefore not be expected to conform to the same requirements expected of U.S performers. The awards she is nominated for this year are notable UK awards and not "employee of the month tinfoil" type awards. She is also the leading star of one of the most notable and publicised porn films from the UK to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonBoyd79 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * PORNBIO applies to all porn performers. British or American its all the same. Spartaz Humbug! 05:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails the notability guidelines for porn bios.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - Fails PORNBIO. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  02:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * delete BLPs require better sourcing then this. Spartaz Humbug! 05:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Science.Warrior and BrandonBoyd79. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   18:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Gene93k. Finnegas (talk) 20:46, 3 May 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.