| Revision as of 19:11, 11 February 2015 editРаціональне анархіст (talk | contribs)2,829 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:08, 11 February 2015 edit undoHullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers96,059 edits →Shane Diesel: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| *'''Keep''' Enough coverage in reliable sources like '']'', '']'', and '']'' to satisfy the ]. ] (]) 18:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Enough coverage in reliable sources like '']'', '']'', and '']'' to satisfy the ]. ] (]) 18:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::The trade press are not independent RS. Discounting industry promotion, the single Cosmopolitan piece is not "enough" independent RS to satisfy GNG.] 19:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC) | ::The trade press are not independent RS. Discounting industry promotion, the single Cosmopolitan piece is not "enough" independent RS to satisfy GNG.] 19:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::Out of the small number of references that aren't press releases or repackaged PR, there are so many contradictions, even in supposedly direct statements by the article subject, that none of them can be established as reliable, and we can't have BLPs without reliable sources. ] (]) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:08, 11 February 2015
Shane Diesel
- Shane Diesel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think this article subject doesn't pass the pornstar biography guideline without any award wins. Whether he passes GNG or not is a little less obvious. The article uses mostly press releases and such from avn and xbiz. Any thoughts? Macreep (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (note) @ 20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment : Misplaced Pages a little slow these days? lol Macreep (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - I believe he passes the GNG. Multiple articles from both AVN and XBIZ plus the feature in Cosmo. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails PORNBIO, and fluffing by the promotional trade press does not establish notability per GNG. Pax 07:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails PORNBIO. Insufficient independent reliable sourcing to satisfy the GNG (references are either industry PR or likely kayfabe). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources like AVN, XBIZ, and Cosmopolitan to satisfy the WP:GNG. Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- The trade press are not independent RS. Discounting industry promotion, the single Cosmopolitan piece is not "enough" independent RS to satisfy GNG. Pax 19:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Out of the small number of references that aren't press releases or repackaged PR, there are so many contradictions, even in supposedly direct statements by the article subject, that none of them can be established as reliable, and we can't have BLPs without reliable sources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)