Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Hays (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Hays

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion requested by subject's representative via OTRS (Ticket#2017090110033012). Reasoning: article is having a negative effect on subject, subject is not notable, sources are insufficient to prove notability. See also WP:BBLP. As nominator, I'm acting on behalf of the OTRS request and have no personal opinion on whether the article should be kept or not. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Weak delete. The subject appears to want to distance herself from her past, which may be a reasonable desire but isn’t a reason for article deletion. However, she does have a valid argument for non-notability. The previous AfD nomination revealed barely enough to merit a keep, and while her IMDB page has extensive credits, significant third party coverage is fairly sparse. It really seems border-line, but I’m leaning closer to delete than keep owing to the the triviality of the coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are not enough, although old but doesn't meet the criteria. Should be deleted Chrisswill (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are trivial, old and irrelevant. Ive seen WAY better articles get deleted for notability ALONE. doesn't meet the notability criteria. Should be deleted Love4Colombia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Factual accuracy is questionable as very shady citations are given for the claims made. 18:46, 6 September 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careyjamesbalboa (talk • contribs)

Delete - Coverage in reliable sources is virtually non-existant except for an interview in Film Threat. Doesn't seem like enough material to make a real article, much less a balanced BLP. Kaldari (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per request. Hmlarson (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.