- Lana Rhoades (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Lana Rhoades Has won professional awards notable enough for an article, sources and information is present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbq430 (talk • contribs)
- Endorse basically technical SNG passes don’t overcome a clear failure to pass the GNG. Source it or lose it is the standard practice. Help us out by listing the GNG passing sources please. Spartaz Humbug! 10:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you remember when I asked you to show how many sources were needed for GNG, and you couldn't answer the question? Unscintillating (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a general sense that this SNG is a bit out of step with the wider consensus. Part of this, IMO, is because some people just don't really like us covering porn-related topics. But some of it is a strong sense that many of the folks that meet the SNG really don't have much coverage from independent sources. I suggest that we find a compromise solution--a set of awards that are fairly narrow that would count as meaningful awards for purposes of meeting the SNG. I'd say something that maybe 20-25 people would win per year (total) sounds about right for the size of the coverage of the field in reliable independent sources. That said, until we finally get an SNG that's in step with the GNG and wider consensus articles like this are going to continue to be deleted at AfD. endorse. Hobit (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hobit: Regarding your statement, some people just don't really like us covering porn-related topics, I guess I'm one of those people, but not for puritanical reasons (which I suspect is what you had in mind). My objection is more a WP:RECENT issue. We have a terrible bias towards things that happen today, and are easy to write about because a google search turns up facts about almost anything and everything that happens. Our goal should be to write about things that are significant, not things that are easy. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As you probably suspect, I lean more toward the "sum of all human knowledge" side. But I do understand that not everyone objecting is doing so for puritanical reasons, though I do think that plays a role for some. Hobit (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The over-inclusive coverage in this area was even worse in the past--it took quite a while to even get it down to the present level. Before 2010 it specifically included all Playboy Playmates, and it included people with "nominations for well-known awards in multiple years" [1] and [2]. The way to harmonize the SNG with the current consensus is to interpret it strictly, as was properly done in this AfD. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There are mentions in other articles. With an article, this information could be linked; redirecting to one of them hides the other mentions which could be found if the redirect was deleted. The AFD looks like no consensus: according to one editor the sources have been checked with a noticeboard and found to be reliable, according to another editor the sources are not reliable, another says interviews "don't qualify" (but see Wikipedia:Interviews) and others address notability guidelines but not sources. The new article (now redirected) has fewer sources than the deleted article. A "technical SNG pass" would be one that passes, but without enough information for anything more than a stub to be written - with the sources mentioned at the AFD was it possible for more to be written? Peter James (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The original AfD close by Ritchie333 was entirely correct: this was a BLP with no reliable sources. If there are new sources that would satisfy WP:BLP sourcing requirements then Kbq430 ought to show us. A Traintalk 22:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This may need more discussion on whether the sources are reliable: [3] (or at least a better explanation). Peter James (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was primarily sourced to Adult Video News. Is that a reliable, third-party, published [source] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? I'm willing to be proved wrong on this but something tells me that the answer is no. A Traintalk 22:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's listed as a source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography but it depends on what is used and what it's used for according to comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 181 and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 175. Peter James (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those linked discussions fill me with confidence about having a BLP almost entirely sourced to AVN. I mean, our own article about AVN (magazine) cites DFW in the lede describing AVN's articles "to be more like infomercials than articles". None of these feel like sturdy levers with which to overturn this AfD decision. A Traintalk 22:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse this was a BLP with what were at best very dubious sources where the subject doesn't pass the GNG. Closing as Delete is entirely reasonable in that situation. Hut 8.5 22:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. A difficult discussion to assess on first glance, given the commitment of a particular group of editors who seek to include in Wikipedia a directory of porn stars who have been industry-recognised. Just like IMDb is the place for comprehensive coverage of films and actors, Wikipedia:Alternative outlets is the answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The alternative outlet is http://www.iafd.com. Anyone interested in the directory of porn stars can go there. These deleted pornbio pages without any independent secondary sources are all over there? Why are they trying to squeeze into Wikipedia? It must be for the promotion. I note that no one is trying to write up historical porn stars - a promotion red flag. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article that editors can see now is not the article that was discussed at AfD. Neither the nom nor the closer said anything about BLP. Therefore, BLP is not an issue here. Unscintillating (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to
speedy keep NPASR wrong venue This nomination was an improper AfD, as there was no nomination, but rather a request for comment. In a properly run forum, there would be a process whereby the RFQ would not have been posted, much less allow admin tools to be used. The fact that DRV may be turning a blind eye to the AfD nomination impropriety here is a measure of where Wikipedia is today, a society whose methods predate the rule of law. The close was further flawed by not taking down !votes that were the politically based "GNG-is-the-only-allowed-notability-guideline", also known as "GNG-centrism". WP:N is not now a content guideline, much less a content policy. There is also the erroneous notion here that article content is only a special case problem with PORNBIO. There are no notability sub-guidelines that don't treat content as a separable issue. GNG does not require prose sources. WP:N itself does not requires sources...the nutshell says that notability requires evidence from reliable sources. PROF is well-known as a notability guideline which invokes evidence and not sources. But all of the notability guidelines and essays are the same (maybe someone should write a notability essay to the contrary). Unscintillating (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note It is day 6 of a 7 day DRV, and the AfD and closer have just now been notified of this DRV. Unscintillating (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The WP:N lede states,
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
- 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;
- The box on the right of the lede of WP:N includes "People", which in turn includes WP:PORNBIO.
- The point here that editors have a reasonable expectation that closers will close in accordance with the guideline, and the guideline allows GNG OR PORNBIO as alternate and equal guidelines. The statement of the close was, "The inherent notability from winning awards was challenged..." This was a procedural error in the close. Also note that editors cannot predict that a closer will move the goalposts, so there was no reason to attempt to satisfy GNG. Nor is there reason to think that those who claimed that GNG had failed had done more than perfunctory searches. Unscintillating (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a second major error in the closing, in that the policy WP:ATD was ignored. Notability is not an argument for deletion when there is a redirect target. This is basic WP:Deletion policy. Deletion when there is a redirect target requires a content deletion argument, at which point the notability becomes incidental as it is WP:REDIRECT that applies. While there are those in the DRV who want to rehabilitate a content argument, this was not part of the close. Unscintillating (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After reading the entire AfD, I did not find that any search for GNG sources was reported. There is also a detailed and related discussion at WT:PORNO, but the discussion there was focused on what sources constitute WP:RS, not on this specific topic. Thus, this is a third major procedural error of the close, that there was never any evidence presented that the topic failed GNG. As per WP:N, "We consider evidence...". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, per DGG. Vanamonde (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There were two awards identified as satisfying PORNBIO, the AVN fan award and the XBIZ award. While the AVN award was questioned as a fan award, there is consensus that the XBIZ "Best New Starlet" award satisfies WP:PORNBIO, and therefore WP:Notability. But the closer does not confirm this consensus, making this the fourth major procedural error in the close. Unscintillating (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that the closing administrator has left a reply to the template I posted on his/her user talk page:
:Sorry, my interest in women is only in what's in the head department, not anywhere else. I have said publicly that Hannah Fry is photogenic and nice looking, but that means diddly squat without her bas-ass calculus and pop mathematics prowess, not to mention the brilliant idea of comparing lexical analysis of the Queen's Christmas message to Snoop Dogg. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- posted by Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like to tell us why you think this is relevant to the discussion? A Traintalk 07:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It means "I'm not interested in this topic or this DRV, here's why, plus a link to an article I'd prefer you to improve instead". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|