Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Wightman (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 keep. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Wightman

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

Lots of BLP concerns here, especially since the sources are all either terrible or broken and I haven't been able to find sufficient sources to even pass WP:BIO. A few sources about practicing without a license, a couple blurbs in bodybuilding magazines -- a little here a little there but not enough overall, especially given our standards for sourcing for BLPs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a few reliable sources in the article already, and combined with sources I was able to find, such as the following, [1] [2] [3] that seems to be enough to meet WP:BIO. Of note is the second source I linked to, which said that she "may be the most famous exotic dancer ever to emerge from the Boston area." Everymorning talk 13:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some decent publications in there, like People and Boston Herald, but I don't think they amount to WP:BIO, especially a WP:BLP, given the focal point is her crime. That most of the links are broken doesn't help. There are sources about her crime, and it sounds like there might be a couple local sources about her being a stripper in Boston. Other than that we have an article about some relationship with Cat Stevens and images of her modeling in a couple magazines. The number of sources does indeed seem to be decent, but the majority of it is about a crime (including those you link above), and per WP:CRIME we don't typically include articles about people whose notability is primarily tied to a crime. It's not a miserable failure of WP:BIO, but I don't think the article passes it. The bigger reason for nomination, however, is the weight of the crime in the context of her notability for the writing of this article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She was very well known as a stripper in Boston. See Combat Zone, Boston. No discussion of the old Combat Zone fails to mention her along with Chesty Morgan. She's discussed at length in this academic paper: [4]. Later she was in the news for practicing psychology without a license, which was interesting precisely because she'd been well known as a stripper. --Rosekelleher (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Here she is mentioned as a "cult figure": [5]
- Here she is mentioned in Harvard Magazine: [6]
- A search on her name turns up Roswell Angier's book about the Combat Zone: [7]. (Angier was one of the photographers featured in a much-discussed 2010 gallery exhibit about the combat zone.)
- As well as the Cat Stevens songbook: [8]
- Here she's mentioned as a kind of symbol of changing times: [9] (Not the greatest source, perhaps, but this author does cite his own sources.)
I don't know why I care, but I'd be willing to do some work on the article. It just makes me sad to think of her being deleted. Especially when I see articles devoted to individual episodes of sit-coms, and things like that. --Rosekelleher (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. To be honest, it feels judgmental, that's what bugs me. This is the second nomination for deletion? If she was notable in the past, she's notable now. Why so zealous? --Rosekelleher (talk) 17:40, 6 February 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.