Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Devon (actress) (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ret.Prof (talk | contribs) at 18:35, 10 December 2021 (→Devon (actress)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:35, 10 December 2021 by Ret.Prof (talk | contribs) (→Devon (actress))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Devon (actress)

AfDs for this article:

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Devon (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was kept almost 4 years ago based on arguments that no longer have the same value since pornbio has been discarded. What we have here is possibly one page in a book that the reference is more of the then boyfriend then her. Then there is a film review so that’s about the film and not her. Then a couple of interviews as part of the usual porn industry noise so not really anything we can use to determine notability. In short fails GNG and ENT. Another redirect to AVN HOF after deletion seems appropriate. Spartaz 21:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I quote: Another redirect to AVN HOF after deletion seems appropriate" - this is the worst possibility. By what right do you want to create redirect from living person to an article about award? AVN HOF is just one of the awards gained by Devon. Create redirect from living person to an article about award of AVN HOF is without any common sense. Either keep artcile or delete article, you have no right to create pointless redirects. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 02:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 04:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Which policy is tohat under. Aside from the fact that your comment makes no sense and that subtropical man’s contribution or porn afds were charactarised by ridiculous assertions of notability, lets address your assertions in details. Do you have a source to show her contribution to the film was significant and that it was unique? Regardless of that its not a policy based reason to keep as Pornbio has been removed. Ditto HoF not longer counts due to pornbio being removed. Ad hom claims just demonstrate you have no proper basis to argue keep. Av stars get treated the same as other entertainers. Do you have any sources at all please? Spartaz 22:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Firstly note this user was pinged so is a canvassed vote. Secondly, subtropical, eithee retract your sttements about me or I'll report you to ANI for a personal attack / poisoning of the well. Your choice. Spartaz 12:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • actually a
  • Delete "Pirates" the film being notable does not transfer notability onto the performers. They have to stand on their own, and this one does not. Awards & noms are irrelevant, as established in wp:pornbio deprecation. The usual AVN, XBIZ, and porn dvd listings are irrelevant. Interviews are primary, used to support stated facts in an article, not build notability. Would also note that the extreme hostility shown by this subtropical guy should see their "vote" stricken and possibly an escalation into a filing to have their behavior examined. Zaathras (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Please stop trying to intimidate other voters. I get it you do not like pornogaphy, lets keep our personal feelings out of this. A vote is a vote and we work off of consensus here.Super (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Seeing how you improperly solicited Subtropical man to come here, based on his agreement with you on this subject (a violation of WP:CANVASS), you have already done what you could to sabotage the discussion, and are in no position to lecture others. Zaathras (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
which sources pass the GNG? Spartaz 20:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Most of the keep votes in the previous discussion violated WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You can't just vaguely point at a policy page and say "yep, meets it" without explaining which sources in particular you feel are sufficient. Zaathras (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:PORNBIO was deprecated by consensus, making that vote based on literally nothing. nableezy - 17:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Did you read what he wrote? He said not Porn:Bio. Please explain what you are talking about?Super (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Zaathras, Nableezy and some other:
Not a voteMisplaced Pages:Notability (people) say: "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt (red. should is not must!!) to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus".
The text is clear that we don't have to rigidly and mathematically stick to politics like robots, if, despite the fact that something may not meet the guidelines in 100%, users may decide to keep the article. Please respect the voices of other users, because every vote in "keep" is attacked by opponents. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 03:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
That's not even a rational or coherent argument, Mr. -man. Notability guidelines and policy exist to give us structure and to ensure that every BLP subject is treated equally and fairly to one another. If Devon the actreess does not meet what is the generally accepted standard of Misplaced Pages notability, then the article should be deleted. Also, for someone who was expressing displeasure about being pinged to this discussion in the first place, you sure are lingering in it. Zaathras (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Major role in major film, multiple awards, I did a little quick searching and easily found this biography which isn't used in the article and by itself is probably a more in-depth source that we have on thousand of other bios. There is more than enough for GNG. MB 03:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
1) Not a major film; notable enough, but that notability does not automatically transfer to participants, 2) pornography awards do not count towards notability per WP:PORNBIO deprecation, and 3) xxbios.com is just a blog filled with uncited personal details with lots of r-rated images. It is amazing to see someone stuff so many flat-out wrong arguments into a single post, but you managed it. Zaathras (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Categories: