Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Smallman12q/articles/Debrahlee Lorenzana

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Smallman12q/articles/Debrahlee Lorenzana
Delete See Articles for deletion/Debrahlee Lorenzana for a history of the drama surrounding this article. This was userfied almost a year ago and never touched again so it's probably time to let go of it. Pichpich (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep-I don't see a reason given for the deletion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The individual continues to receive coverage, even if its not reflected in the userspace article...though I intend to update the article in due time. I'd like to say that as an active editor, I'm disturbed by this groundless nomination of an article in my userspace.Smallman12q (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All apologies for not contacting you first. This was an honest mistake: as I try to clean up userpages that appear in Category:Living people I try to figure out whether the corresponding user is active and obviously missed one in this case. That being said, this has nothing to do with what I think of a potential Lorenzana article. The issue here is that user pages should not be used to indefinitely host deleted content (see User pages) and I think this is particularly important in the case of biographies of living persons. The page can be undeleted at the touch of a button if you ever decide to make the significant changes required to move this back to mainspace. Pichpich (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy does not definitively state how much time an article is permitted to stay in userspace before being deleted. As such, I've raised a concern at Jimbo's page. Hopefully, this will result in a explicit policy.Smallman12q (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This has dealt with multiple times--fact is, she's notable, but previous articles have been deleted by AfDs that didn't consider all the facts and inappropriately considered it a WP:BLP1E case when it's not. If anything should be done here, it's to write the article correctly and get it back into mainspace. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for now At Deletion review/Log/2010 November 16, the DRV closer wrote: "I read no consensus to overturn, but at the same time the clear implication that a userspace draft could have swayed several votes to allow recreation ... The most efficient way to demonstrate that the concerns have been addressed is a working userspace draft, and that one such would be helpful is the only true consensus in this round. Accordingly, this closer recommends following this course of action and seek userification if this article remains desirable." Granting  more time to improve the page is reasonable. If the page is not sufficiently improved a year after the close of this MfD, I ask Smallman12q to tag the page for deletion per db-userreq. Deleted BLPs should not be indefinitely hosted in userspace. Cunard (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:INCUBATE and remove this from userspace if there is a claim that this could be in mainspace. Those who make the claim this could be made viable can fix it or it can be flushed. (Since XfD discussions often end up as vote counts, my opinion is still a Delete from userpace for determining consensus). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * The subject fails BLP1E, and there is no reason to think that this will change. The lady seems to have returned to private life after the one event.  However, her name continues to be used in the media as an example of a more general subject.  Suggest redirecting Debrahlee Lorenzana to Lookism, as at least a reasonable search term, and suggest to interested editors that worthwhile content might be added to that target, but that it does not belong in a stand alone article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Debrahlee Lorenzana. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - The time to either shit or get off the pot is long past due. We don't get to keep deleted articles in user-space, untouched for over a year.  Especially of BLPs, double-especially for WP:BLP1Es. Tarc (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Although I enjoy all the hits the version on my blog gets, putting my children thru college little by little.  Cheers.--Milowent • talkblp-r  22:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously though, Lorenzana is a borderline case, yet the kind that gets some people to claim like crazy that she's incredibly non-notable.--Milowent • talkblp-r 22:52, 2 May 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.