Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devon (actress) (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus explicitly with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The numerical split here is 9 keep, 5 delete; but the "keep" arguments are generally so poor that there is almost, but not quite, consensus for deletion. To take the arguments individually; PORNBIO is depracated, and has no bearing on this discussion; WP:NACTOR requires appearances in multiple notable films; I see no consensus or precedent that being a Penthouse Pet is sufficient for ANYBIO; and GNG/BASIC requires substantive coverage in multiple, intellectually independent, reliable sources, which have not been provided here. There are also concerns with canvassing, so I would rather close this and allow for renomination than prolong an already messy discussion from which clear consensus is unlikely to arise. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devon (actress)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] 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 Humbug! 21:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Per
    Shortcuts
    she has met the criteria for Pirates alone as its a well known unique, very notable film. She has also been inducted in to the AV Hall of Fame. Is this AfD because its pornography related? If so a good explanation as to why av stars should be treated no different then any other profession can be found in the first AfD in a comment by User:Subtropical-manSuper (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Humbug! 22:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable film role + the most important award in the porn industry ("Porn Oscars"). [here was a piece of text that - theoretically by some users - might have been defined as offensive - deleted by the author of comment at the request of the user Spartaz, as part of good will]. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Humbug! 12:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
which sources pass the GNG? Spartaz Humbug! 20:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:PORNBIO was deprecated by consensus, making that vote based on literally nothing. nableezy - 17:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Zaathras, Nableezy and some other:
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
1) Since "major film" is subjective, classifying it as not a major film is just your opinion. 2) this makes no sense since WP:PORNBIO doesn't exist anymore, it can't disallow anything. Awards of any kind that generate coverage can contribute to GNG. 3) xxxbios.com is not a blog, it is a copyrighted site that requests attribution when used, hallmarks of a RS. The fact that it has r-rated images is irrelevant and suggests that you may have an issue with pornography and probably can't maintain a NPOV in this area. MB 02:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A copyrighted site that requests attribution when used, hallmarks of a [reliable source]" ~ I found this discussion via ANI and just wanted to have a quick look through the arguments. This one is so weirdly incorrect that I had to take a moment to point this out. It appears to be self-published lacking editorial oversight; copyright notices and attribution requests have no effect on the reliability of a source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more opinions that address the sourcing situation, which is going to determinative for the fate of this article as a WP:BLP.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per those above. On an aside: I fail to see the benefit of deletion then redirection. If the title is to remain extant, keeping the history intact is almost always preferable. A consensus for redirection here means the page should not be restored without substantial new developments. There is no reason that these should be treated different than other topics which would be redirected without deletion if redirect was the consensus here; moreover, if redirect is not the consesnsus here, then recreating as a redirect within a short amount of time is really an immediate objection to the outcome and against consensus. (Are pornography related subjects now too taboo to exist even in page histories?) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping the history intact is not preferable, as it just makes the redirect a magnet for fans with no grasp of project policy to come and restore the article. This is why I retain Lana Rhodes on watchlist long after the discussion. Also, "keep per above" is meaningless, as many of the calls to keep above were not policy-based. Zaathras (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC, per review of available sources, which are WP:SPS, routine notices, and PR blotter. The statements that the subject make about themselves do not count either. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I checked out all comments of voters and I'm agree with keep voters. Having main role in notable movies, meets WP:PORNBIO. Brayan ocaner (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PORNBIO has been supressed and is no longer grounds to keep any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Brayan ocaner: if one clicks on the link in your comment, WP:PORNBIO, one is presented with the following --- The subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and pornographic models was deprecated in March 2019 in this Request for Comment. Its content formerly appeared on Wikipedia:Notability (people) and was removed in this edit pursuant to the Request for Comment. With that, please explain how an article meets the notability criteria of something that literally does not exist. Zaathras (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a few routine articles and a bunch of PR matieral does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I tend to be extremely skeptical about notability in this area, but this is one of the instances where there is sufficient references and sufficient accomplishments. The question is not about policy: it's about where we should draw the line in interpreting the guidelines. The various deprecated guidleines were eprecated only in the sense of no longer being used for presumed notability, not as irrelevant to notability altogether. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 19 December 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Devon_(actress)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1061116335"