Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa-Ashley


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Melissa-Ashley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The two sources are aabout people being prosecuted in error not this person. Therefore does not pass pornbio or gng Spartaz Humbug! 21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

She has been very active in anti-pornography prosecution, this has made her notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.194.99.125 (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It has not just been one trial, it has bee at least 5 US trials and one UK. This pattern of activism has made her notable. Her physical attributes are also very relevant, since this is what has lead to the prosecution in the first place.

UPDATE - edit warring? Somebody is removing productive edits on this page in an unproductive fashion.

I added well documented discussion of her activism in preventing overzealous porn prosecution in conservative districts. These can still be seen in previous version of the page. I documented it with bona fide and highly reliable sources - legitimate newspapers such as the Guardian, and US court documents, which are both public records and highly reliable and verifiable. This is a demonstration of her notability; she is well known as an activist in this regard. her notability had been in dispute, and this addressed that issue.

I would revert these edits removing this, but i don't want to contribute to edit warring, so I will wait a few days. in the mean time, I am posting this to stimulate discussion, and allow the individual who did this to explain why these highly documented, neutral objective, and verifiable discussionof her notable activism in this area should be removed. (Assuming it wasn't just vandalism, which i don think so, but is a possibility too)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.194.99.125 (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete fails both guidelines Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom'a accurate assessment. Only claim of notability is being caught up in a non-notable prosecution, and that's not enough to sustain a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This is unsubstantiated, and seems to be a willful mispresentation of the facts: it is not "a" non-notable prosecution. It is at least 6, 5 in the US and one in the UK - TWO countries. They ARE notable - they received wide press coverage as documented by prominent newspaper coverage.

Who decides notability? A single user (Mr Wolfowitz)? The facts, should speak louder than the unsubstantiated (and incorrect in significant aspects) opinion of one user who provided no justification — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.194.99.125 (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2015 (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.