- 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. (non-admin closure) ansh666 01:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Elayne Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. WP:NOTINHERITED from husband Buck Angel. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the original author of the article, and also the person who requested the un-delete. The original article stood from 2005 until 2014 - nine years - when it was nominated for deletion under this same basis. I was inactive here at the time, and not aware of the deletion until recently, and unable to make a defense. The article was written as Elayne Angel is notable for her significant contributions to the Body Modification community, and as part of a larger project to clarify the history of that community. Her notability stood on that basis, prior to her marriage to Buck, which, I agree, is not a basis of her notability, as there is no substantial public relevance of their marriage to Elayne's work in area of her notability, and the novelty of the terms of their divorce do not rise to the level of notability - although someone with more interest and knowledge of divorce law/transgender issues might have a more useful opinion in that area than I do.
- Also, as I am clearly currently in the process of a re-write of the article, both removing excess information and hopefully delivering proper citations to support the initial notability, I would appreciate having the space and time to do that re-write, and then, if someone who wants to argue that her contributions to that industry alone are not notable, a request for deletion might be more useful. It would be very helpful if someone with academic or historical knowledge of the body modification community, other than myself, would be the person making said argument. Glowimperial (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article relies on weak sources, reader profiles, and sources that only mention her in passing while focusing on the person she was married to. The net result is no indication of notability. The body piercing statements are not well sourced and do not indicate she is actually as notable in that field as claimed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What would be better sources than the ones currently used? Are there texts besides Ward's and Modern Primitives that would be more authoritative sources for this field? Glowimperial (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Nothing indicates that any of the Delete voters have done source searching or have any historic or technical knowledge of the topic. None have responded in any way to inquiry - both before and after the article has undergone significant revision, including removal of extraneous material related to subject's marriage. 21:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep
- She pierced Lenny Kravitz's penis. [1] (and further reported by [2])
- She wrote a book "The Piercing Bible" which seems to be have received attention. Google scholar shows it has been used as a reference multiple times.
- She was a former president of APP [3] She works in a niche field but it seems among the piercing community, she has some notability. [4],[5],[6] Of course, more authoritative sources would be preferred here.
- Looking at the situation overall, including the fact that she was a former wife of Buck Angel, I am leaning towards a keep. I have also noticed that the articles of spouses of famous people are usually kept (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Chan (philanthropist)). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only spouses of famous people who are kept routinely are those of heads of state -- I've sometimes argued we should be a little more flexible, but that has never had consensus in general, though there have been occasional exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above, the subject of the article is primarily notable for her contributions to the body modification industry. She is one of the seminal figures in the industry and the author of its primary/only text on professional practice. Her marriage is not the basis of her notability. The article has been updated since being put up for deletion, and makes bare mention of her marriage, and only because of its legal novelty/controversy. Glowimperial (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as rewritten - the "inherited notability" thing is surely a valid concern, but a red herring in this instance - this person is clearly notable in her own right in a completely different field (the rewritten article makes this clearer). Fosse 8► 15:43, 14 June 2016 (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.