Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lena Marquise

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Marquise

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

There's nothing to actually suggest this "artist" is notable outside of the controversy and (the controversy of) her sexual activities. The article is fluffed by the current sources and they're not even significant sources, with none of them focusing on her career as a "singer-songwriter". The best my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found was News finding several links but they're not significant. SwisterTwister talk 00:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: except for WP:BLP1E (the subject's activities weren't "events"), if a person meets WP:BASIC for any other reason (in this case, sexual activities), then he/she is suitable for a standalone article. There are several sources that establish notability under WP:BASIC. Esquivalience ^t 01:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though some of the few sources by notable publications aren't even good quality news, basically it seems maybe she got the best coverage for the Usher phone charging controversy. This article has so many issues, I'm not sure it's worth keeping. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tend to disagree here. The artist's art is about the process of transgressing consumption/commodification, and in particular in the context of social media. Therefore, completely unsurprisingly, bloggers like to talk about it and then feign surprise that they're a part of it. Since they're both the cullies and the subjects of the art-as-process, their surprise is about as meaningful as a toddler's upon finding a mirror. However, it means that their references are going to multiply. This is going to be a go-to reference in an era of monetized clicks. Assessing by the artist standard results as a fail. Assessing as a phenomenon is to agree that the person is a commodity. I completely understand if others don't agree. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weak delete, don't see any solid references in current version as of Jun 21 2015 so why is the article practically two pages long? Looks like advertising to me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Changing to Keep based on references provided by User:Cunard. Article still needs serious trimming.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More of an advertising piece. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Schuster, Dana (2015-02-08). "Dominatrix fears 'Fifty Shades' will hurt her business". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
2. Costello, Carolyn (2015-02-10). "Inside a real BDSM dungeon in NYC". WPIX. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
3. Spanier, Ian (2015-04-22). "Right Next Door: Lena Marquise, "Mistress Lady Wednesday"". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
4. Setoodeh, Ramin (2015-02-11). "'Fifty Shades of Grey': A Dominatrix Reviews the Sex Scenes". Variety. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
  The article notes:
  But how realistic is the sex in “Fifty Shades?” To help answer that question, I took along an expert to an early screening in New York this week. Lena Marquise, who goes by the stage name “Mistress Lady Wednesday,” has worked as a dominatrix for a decade (she charges up to $500 an hour). Here’s what the 29-year-old had to say about the movie.
  This is not significant coverage but can be used to verify facts in the article.
5. Duran, Jose D. (2014-12-05). "Meet Lena Marquise, the Performance Artist Behind the Vagina Phone Charger (NSFW)". Miami New Times. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
6. Dickson, EJ (2014-12-04). "Usher went to Art Basel and charged his phone in a lady's vagina". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lena Marquise to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I'm still not seeing the notability and I'm not sure how good reviewing Fifty Shades of Grey that makes to notability. She's notable for being a dominatrix? SwisterTwister talk

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The sources I provided above provide this coverage, so that's where I see the notability.
The review of Fifty Shades of Grey indicates that her opinion on the topic as a dominatrix is respected by Variety. Though the Variety article doesn't establish notability (the other sources that provide significant coverage do), I am including it here as an additional data point for editors to consider. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2015 (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.