Deletion of Tericka Dye

Comment: Dismas says it has news articles (agreed) and that it is useful and interesting. Bugs says "I saw it in USA Today." These arguments do not address   and  as well as other deletion reasons given in the nomination
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: While I understand the point by  that  may not apply, on the grounds that she's been outed as a ex-porn actress on two occasions rather than one, both are minor, and both can be seen as a continuum. In effect, her claim to notability here is that she's an ex-porn star who has hit the news twice when that prior life was revealed. Otherwise she is not a public figure, is trying to keep a low profile, and is unlikely to hit the news again. Meanwhile, she's be trying to move away from her (not very controversial) past by changing her name, and having this coverage here has some risk of causing her harm.  probably does apply, but for me the main reason to delete comes down to a consideration of the harm this article risks causing someone trying to rebuild their life after being outed, compared to the public interest served in having this article in the future. Given that I can't see any special enduring value in the article, but I can see a risk of harm to the subject, I think the apparent intent of BLP (as outlined by Edison), BLP1E and NOTNEWS comes into play
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Given , the previous argument counts for nothing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)