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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Elyse

[edit]

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

All references are to the subject's personal website. No claims or editorial support for notability, other than designing jewelry for a living, sponsoring some events, and having MS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO Nixie9 (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article smacks of self promotion, no coverage outside of her own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.102.92 (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We seem to be looking at different articles. The one I see does have sources other than her website. Perhaps both of you can explain this? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of the 12 references, 7 are to her site, one is to the top level of a bust.com (not even a specific entry), one is a blog mention of her showing a swimsuit collection, one is to a page of photos, not mentioning the subject, one is a press release stating that she has MS, and the last is a blog posting that she sponsored a salon event. Not one editorial comment in the bunch. I'm sure she is a wonderful person and designer, but there is no editorial coverage to even discuss WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cleaning up the refs as much as I can. The "press" section of her website has piles of links, but I haven't found anything truly substantial about her yet.[1] I'm not sure if there's anything here or not (though the article is clearly COI.) - SummerPhD (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to find her way into a lot of "blurbs" in smaller sources. Drum Magazine, Alternative Press and such. I'm not seeing anything substantial. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - She has numerous short blurbs in smaller sources and an occasional mention in something larger, but I don't see substantial coverage anywhere by her own site. I don't see it passing GNG or any biography guidelines. If there are substantial sources out there, whoever handles her website should be looking for work. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/comment - Certainly seems to be a weak delete not least as she has no Google News notability, BUT doing some creative searching, she has received quite a bit of attention as a higher-profile MS person. Nice link from the National MS Society ALTHOUGH no author/date. Article on famous MS sufferers published by the Disabled World in 2008 with a minimal bio, predating creation of WP entry - there is a lot of cross-referencing going on though. Also looking up the names of artworks she has created, such as the "Meningitis Dress", brings up a number of interesting links although none are enough for individual notability. However, there is a strong drip-drip-drip mentality here, and my experience with disability/conditions is that those with issues who would not normally pass notability otherwise, tend to receive more attention because of the "hook" that attracts reporters/activists/people looking for role models to hold up. I will have another look later as I suspect some of the sources might be NSFW, but I concur that a weak delete seems to be appropriate based on what can be found at moment. Mabalu (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so THAT'S what the M16 vibrator was about. The Hustler reference is slight but I still doubt it is sufficent, so weak delete vote from before stands. Mabalu (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all the reasons provided above. If some reliable sources can have some meaningful editorial content I would be open to changing my !vote. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2013 (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.