Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Batey

thank you for keeping lisa, you all deleted HereAndNow.Net, I am glad you atleast kept lisa from that part of history. Lisa and HereAndNow.net affected a few thousand americans, it was one of the first multi stream sites out there that WAS NOT PORN!!!


 * 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.  Citi Cat   ♫ 02:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Batey
Appears to fail notability guidelines. ghits: &  &  NMChico24 03:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom. WebHamster 09:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep With the recent changes, I believe this Wikipedia article is elegible to be a great addition to Wikipedia. Skwralphy 16:30, 24 August 2007 (EST) — Skwralphy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Lisa is one of the first (and most loved) group-livecasters. In my POV that alone is not enought relavance. MovGP0 09:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep First 24/7 webstream-lifecast (prior to Jennicam), first group-lifecast, first streaming own sleeping, and first livecast with a cam from a bot (the last one has minor relevance to me). MovGP0 16:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment MovGP0 has !voted both Delete and Keep, and has grayed out various comments which s/he did not consider to be "important." I have un-grayed all but those of User:MovGP0. Please do not edit the comments of others. Edison 19:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm just not seeing the notability here. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep due to reasons stated above--KingMorpheus 23:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This Afd page has been vandalized. One example is here. Brusegadi 23:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep - First, is Wikipedia merely a repository of information easily located with ghits? If so, what is the point? Please judge the article on its own merits. If references from Entertainment Weekly, Salon.com, and the Museum of Modern Art don't establish notability, I don't know what does. Second, her status as an innovator in the lifestreaming arena is not in dispute. She was the first cam girl to go 24/7 with streaming video. Please consult notability guidelines - "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." On this basis alone, the entry is appropriate. --Viewmaster17 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC) — Viewmaster17 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * STRONG KEEP - EVERYTHING —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockOn0009 (talk • contribs) 23:51, August 24, 2007 (UTC)  — RockOn0009 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Strong Delete - Per WP:NN and WP:RS. Brusegadi 00:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Per new citations. Brusegadi 06:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - For shenanigans. Speciate 01:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Strong keep per both WP:NN and WP:RS. See above. Article meets notability guidelines for "significant coverage" with multiple "verifiable" and "reliable" sources "independent of the subject." --Viewmaster17 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC) — Viewmaster17 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * STRONG Keep, reasons stated above--mallred 03:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - See Viewmaster17's reasons. They are valid. References supplied on related wiki page should validate entry. If Anacam and Jennicam are valid wikipedia entries, surely an original cast member associated with hereandnow.net should be also. Wikidave676 04:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC) — Wikidave676 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: Wikidave676 is a new user whose only edits are to this AFD.  Someguy1221 06:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Oy, the sources. Salon.com is the only one that really pans out per WP:RS for establishing notability. Everything else is too peripheral or is a blog-type item. However, on the basis of the Salon mention, I think an argument can be mate that she's notable. Finally, I cannot let apparent !vote-stacking sway my opinion one way or the other. I'd like more/better sources, but Salon will preserve it for now. —C.Fred (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I would not delete this only because of the shenanigans. Instead it would be fair to just don't count the votes or the users without further contributions or trying to manipulate. WP:RS is given. WP:NN depends how you interpret "widley known and recognized". I think that Batey is not so widley known, but like Jennicam she has made pioneering work in the field of web streaming entertainment. MovGP0 07:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no such thing like Strong Keep and Strong Delete - there is just keep and delete MovGP0 07:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC) -- I've greyed out what was not important. MovGP0 07:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I undid your graying out of comments other than your own. Edison 19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Like Andrew Lenahan, I do not see the notability here. C.Fred points out that Salon.com is the only reliable source. WP:N requires substantial coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate long-term notability, I don't see this here. --Malcolmxl5 14:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note new citations: Le Monde, Institut national de l'audiovisuel, Cleveland Plain Dealer and N.O. Times Picayune. --Viewmaster17 22:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Entertainment weekly, Salon and 2 newspaper articles all meet WP:RS. I think those articles taken in combination meet significant coverage, and therefore category 1 of WP:N. Horrorshowj 08:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage clearly satisfies WP:N. Edison 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: While researching data streaming, a reference came up a few times that peeked my curiosity: 'Nekomimi_Lisa'. Not wanting to be side tracked, I did a quick C&P into Wikipedia and found a concise non-bloated definition on the page in question. Is this expeditious handling not Wikipedia's goal / commitment?  N1popeye 07:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC) — N1popeye (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.