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


 * edit protected Withdraw request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This subject is under a deletion discussion again at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Smallman12q/articles/Debrahlee Lorenzana. That page is one of at least three sitting dormant in userspace on this subject.

Looking though the many discussions, it reads pretty plain that the subject should not be a standalone article per WP:BLP1E. This is not likely to change. The subject has long since returned to a private life. However, the subjects name continues to be used in the media, and remains an interest.

The page is currently salted. I think a protected redirect is warranted. The best page I can find as a general subject is Lookism. I proposed that this page be redirected to Lookism. It is a good solution for anyone using the term as a search term, and as a target page for anyone who believe that the subject, or associated references/stories, requires some mention somewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is a difficult one. Do we have any reliable sources that discuss thesubject in the context of lookism? If we don't then it strikes me that a redirect to an unrelated subject is almost OR and we have to be careful under BLP for redirects from names. Personally I would prefer to leave this blank. Spartaz Humbug! 02:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think BLP1E applies, then you don't understand the subject. You'd not be alone--most editors haven't looked into her in depth. She went on a Discovery Channel program on cosmetic surgery years before she was allegedly fired for her looks, where she argued with her plastic surgeon to increase her bust size beyond his professional recommendation. Years before she hired Gloria Allred, she was quoted on national TV saying she wanted to look like "tits on a stick". Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, I think BLP1E gets prominent mention in the several discussions. I am not an expert in this subject, I am just trying to advance the discussion.  I didn’t know about an appearance on Discovery Channel.  I do note that there are no new sources that appear to justify overturning the AfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources to overturn the AfD were there all along. They were overlooked by some editors, primarily because the biggest advocate for the article's existence was very WP:DEADHORSE about it.  While it's clear to me that if you put the two separate userified versions together along with all the sourcing I brought up in the various DRVs, there's plenty to make an article on the phenomenon, I'm not losing sleep about us not having an article on her.  Having done the research myself, I just happen to have become convinced it's the wrong outcome.  Note that in April she's still getting name checked by major outlets as "fired for looking too good" and the like.  That's enduring notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jclemens. You seem convinced that a good case can be made at DRV  Good luck with that.  It is true that an unskilled loud participant in a debate can have a strongly negative net contribution to his side.
 * I had already looked at the April at the new references which are in English.  & .  The first uses her name a lot, but I wouldn’t say it provides secondary source material about the person.  The second contains only a passing mention.  To me, those two do not overcome the reasons for deletion.  What they do tell me that that the name has real world meaning in terms of what seems best called lookism, and that it is a reasonable search term.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Spartaz, Lookism is a very odd sounding subject, but it is actually well supported by a few academic references. No, the subject is not mentioned in the very few googleable reliable references.  However, connecting the person to the academic subject is pretty obvious to me, and not going very far along out on a NOR limb.  Others may disagree.
 * BLP-type issues are more important. Is there *any* harm in sending people searching the person’s name to Lookism, compared with pointing them to the many project space and user space pages?  I think no, but some may.
 * If, at the end of this discussion, we decide that not even a redirect to something academic is OK, then I think that means the userspace pages should be deleted, and the contentious deletion discussions blanked (or at least the person’s name camouflaged). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For a good, current summary article, check out this. It's barely more than two weeks old, and it would make a great Wikipedia article.  Except we don't have one at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I’d say that this source is repetition of coverage about the same event that the BLP1E references refer to, which is the combined dismissal and court case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Two events: 1) Discovery channel program, 2) lawsuit. Unconnected events, separated in time by seven years, each with multiple RS'es documenting it. BLP1E never applied. Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A lone appearance on a cable tv special does not constitute an "event". You lost this line of argumentation back then, and it ain't gonna win anyone over now; BLP1E applies perfectly to this woman and this sad and pathetic attempt to cram her into article-space. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If she's covered in RS'es for two events, BLP1E doesn't apply.  If she's not a low-profile individual, BLP1E doesn't apply.  That's not to say that Wikipedia must have an article on her, but BLP1E isn't a good reason to prevent or delete one... because it never applied.  At the time she was covered by multiple RS in 2010, she had already been covered in 2003 by Discovery Health. Even if subsequent attention to that Discovery Health appearance was drawn by the 2010 controversy, that doesn't make it not an RS coverage of her. Go find and watch the segment--I know I linked it in one of the DRVs somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Athaenara's page move
Agree with Athaenara's page move to Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Smallman12q/articles/Debrahlee Lorenzana. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)