Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Ann Wheatcroft

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. - Mailer Diablo 07:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay Ann Wheatcroft

Non-notable porn site star, all links lead to porn sites. IMHO, it should be deleted (1) as advertising; (2) as unverifiable by any reliable source; and (3) as non-notable pursuant to WP:BIO and WP:PORN BIO TheronJ 03:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete does not look good naked. plus everything that was said above. Somerset219 04:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Cited source doesn't look reputable and I was unable to find any other sources on the matter. -- Koffieyahoo 04:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Though I liked the old woman trying to haul her old husband away from the "actress" in that picture. Resolute 04:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Source provides links to multiple newspaper article scans. All newspapers are mainstream national and local UK papers. Article provides link to website where actress publishes her work - can delete link if felt to be advertising. Deletion because she doesn't look good naked would remove most Bio's from Wikipedia. If you want to verify the sources then contact the paper's or court in question and they will provide transcrips as is custom in UK. Actress is notable in UK for the Porn she specialises and generates national TV and Newspaper coverage as well as local. Not being famous in US is not a criteria for deletion. Publicgirluk 06:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment those links are to a porn site, perhaps if they actually linked to the supposed paper, you might argue that. Its hard for me to take you seriously when you [1] say shes "notable" Somerset219 08:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (1) Somerset, you can (and are required to) discuss the material without personal attacks. (2) Publicgirluk, even assuming the first porn site linked has an accurate reproduction of a York Evening Press article, I still don't see that Wheatcroft meets WP:BIO or WP:PORN BIO yet. If she's only notable for (a) being arrested (twice?) for public nudity and (b) being the star of a porn site, I don't think she's notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by theronJ (talk • contribs)

• Comment silly me Somerset219 23:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per WP:BIO. Not notable, eccentric behaviour. There are laws concerning public nudity just like there are laws concerning theft. She would pass unnoticed with her clothes on, and indeed one could argue passes unnoticed WITHOUT her clothes on per photo. Could warrant a line in exhibitionism, public nudity, flashing or streaking, though. Ohconfucius 07:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, if only due to press coverage. --TheM62Manchester 09:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Getting arrested for "disorderly behaviour" isn't really that big a deal, and if that's her main claim to fame, she fails WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Verify or Delete. Please link to something credible.  Cdcon  17:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ohconfucius. -- Slowmover 19:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Mukadderat 19:13, 13 August 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.