| Revision as of 22:05, 18 October 2008 editMinos P. Dautrieve (talk | contribs)576 edits →Angelica Bella: del← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:44, 18 October 2008 edit undoThe Enchantress Of Florence (talk | contribs)192 edits →Angelica BellaNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Comment'''. The BLP violation was added by an editor in August 2008. Most of this editor's changes were reverted. This one got missed, but it was an easily fixable problem. As for notability, the consensus in May was keep based on a 1993 Hot D'Or win, which is not verifiable online but likely to be true. ] (]) 16:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | *'''Comment'''. The BLP violation was added by an editor in August 2008. Most of this editor's changes were reverted. This one got missed, but it was an easily fixable problem. As for notability, the consensus in May was keep based on a 1993 Hot D'Or win, which is not verifiable online but likely to be true. ] (]) 16:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :*'''Question'''. Enchantress, I am confused. I just looked up the Ginger Jolie AfD and there you voted "keep", whereas here you seem to say that we should delete given the discussion over there. Could you please explain your reasoning? --] (]) 17:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | :*'''Question'''. Enchantress, I am confused. I just looked up the Ginger Jolie AfD and there you voted "keep", whereas here you seem to say that we should delete given the discussion over there. Could you please explain your reasoning? --] (]) 17:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::*'''An easy question to answer'''. The Ginger Jolie discussion, given the matters under dispute, establishes that a Penthouse Pet, who has appeared in relatively high-profile pornographic films, but has no mainstream coverage, and no awards within the gene, is viewed within Misplaced Pages as at the lower end of the notability spectrum. The subject of this article does not have a "credntial" equivalent to "Penthouse Pet" (laugh stifled at that phrase), has not appeared in such high-profile films, has no mainstream coverage, and no awards within the genre. She therefore would fall below the notability threshold. The Jolie discussion indicates roughly where the breakpoint is for pornographic performers, and the subject of this article clearly falls below that breakpoint. ] (]) 23:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Speedy Close''' nominator failed to provide anything even vaguely resembling a policy based rationale for deletion. AFD is not a substitute for OPRS, and there's no evidence this was submitted via those channels. Additionally I take an extremely dim view of nom mass nominating porn articles as inherent BLP violations.] (]) 20:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | '''Speedy Close''' nominator failed to provide anything even vaguely resembling a policy based rationale for deletion. AFD is not a substitute for OPRS, and there's no evidence this was submitted via those channels. Additionally I take an extremely dim view of nom mass nominating porn articles as inherent BLP violations.] (]) 20:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per nominator. It is clear that most of the "Keep" comments are motivated by animosity toward the nominator (which I, of couse, do not share . . .), and that those comments are riddled with assumptions of bad faith, and, in the case of ], deliberate falsehoods. There are no reliable third-party sources verifying notability, aqnd there are not even any claims in the article meeting the current versions of the notability standard, verified or unverified. And the supposed award, not mentioned in the article, has never been substantiated by anything other than a redlinked reference in an entirely unsourced article in the French edition of Misplaced Pages -- where the notability of the award itself has been challenged. ] (]) 22:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nominator. It is clear that most of the "Keep" comments are motivated by animosity toward the nominator (which I, of couse, do not share . . .), and that those comments are riddled with assumptions of bad faith, and, in the case of ], deliberate falsehoods. There are no reliable third-party sources verifying notability, aqnd there are not even any claims in the article meeting the current versions of the notability standard, verified or unverified. And the supposed award, not mentioned in the article, has never been substantiated by anything other than a redlinked reference in an entirely unsourced article in the French edition of Misplaced Pages -- where the notability of the award itself has been challenged. ] (]) 22:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:44, 18 October 2008
Angelica Bella
AfDs for this article:- Angelica Bella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unsourced. Original research. No assertion of notability under the applicable policy. Various claims violating BLP, including the spectacularly unsourced claim that she performed with her sister in a film titled (in translation) "Incest." While the Ginger Jolie AFD hasn't achieved a consensus, the discussion there shows a consensus that articles like this one should be deleted. Not eligible for speedy, unfortunately. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Several sources are in the article. The claim that she performed with her sister is in the article in Deltadivinere. Both previous AfDs resulted in Keep, so I would have expected the nom to comment on why those decisions should be overturned. --Crusio (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Response. No third-party reliable sources in article, just promo pieces of dubious origin. You can't seriously be claiming that a puff piece for a porn film is sufficient under BLP to source what is in effect a claim "she had sex on film with her sister." And the applicable nobility standard has been strengthened since those discussions. Consensus changes, that's why I cited the detailed Jolie AFD. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy close very pointy nomination, subject of this BLP has not requested deleted, Ginger Jolie has George The Dragon (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The BLP violation was added by an editor in August 2008. Most of this editor's changes were reverted. This one got missed, but it was an easily fixable problem. As for notability, the consensus in May was keep based on a 1993 Hot D'Or win, which is not verifiable online but likely to be true. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question. Enchantress, I am confused. I just looked up the Ginger Jolie AfD and there you voted "keep", whereas here you seem to say that we should delete given the discussion over there. Could you please explain your reasoning? --Crusio (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- An easy question to answer. The Ginger Jolie discussion, given the matters under dispute, establishes that a Penthouse Pet, who has appeared in relatively high-profile pornographic films, but has no mainstream coverage, and no awards within the gene, is viewed within Misplaced Pages as at the lower end of the notability spectrum. The subject of this article does not have a "credntial" equivalent to "Penthouse Pet" (laugh stifled at that phrase), has not appeared in such high-profile films, has no mainstream coverage, and no awards within the genre. She therefore would fall below the notability threshold. The Jolie discussion indicates roughly where the breakpoint is for pornographic performers, and the subject of this article clearly falls below that breakpoint. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Close nominator failed to provide anything even vaguely resembling a policy based rationale for deletion. AFD is not a substitute for OPRS, and there's no evidence this was submitted via those channels. Additionally I take an extremely dim view of nom mass nominating porn articles as inherent BLP violations.Horrorshowj (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. It is clear that most of the "Keep" comments are motivated by animosity toward the nominator (which I, of couse, do not share . . .), and that those comments are riddled with assumptions of bad faith, and, in the case of Horrorshowj, deliberate falsehoods. There are no reliable third-party sources verifying notability, aqnd there are not even any claims in the article meeting the current versions of the notability standard, verified or unverified. And the supposed award, not mentioned in the article, has never been substantiated by anything other than a redlinked reference in an entirely unsourced article in the French edition of Misplaced Pages -- where the notability of the award itself has been challenged. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)