| Revision as of 12:19, 30 November 2013 editSmokeyJoe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,434 edits →Elexis Monroe: Endorse. Unambiguous AfD. The new source adds nothing. It is two trivial mentions, absolutely no commentary, from a connected source. PORNBIO is a farce of a guideline. Ask anyone supporting catalogues of porn actors for having Wikiped← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:49, 30 November 2013 edit undoHullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers96,059 edits →Elexis Monroe: endorse deletionNext edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| ::Doing exactly what you suggested I do is forum-shopping? If so, why did you suggest it? And you really need to retire the "personalizing" argument because you apparently have a different definition for the word than I have (I've asked you numerous times how I'm personalizing anything and you never responded). But if you're allowing a relist, at least we're getting somewhere. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:yellow;">]</span></sup></small> 05:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | ::Doing exactly what you suggested I do is forum-shopping? If so, why did you suggest it? And you really need to retire the "personalizing" argument because you apparently have a different definition for the word than I have (I've asked you numerous times how I'm personalizing anything and you never responded). But if you're allowing a relist, at least we're getting somewhere. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:yellow;">]</span></sup></small> 05:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Endorse'''. Unambiguous AfD. The new source adds nothing. It is two trivial mentions, absolutely no commentary, from a connected source. PORNBIO is a farce of a guideline. Ask anyone supporting catalogues of porn actors for having Misplaced Pages standalone biographies to declare any COI with the porn industry. --] (]) 12:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | *'''Endorse'''. Unambiguous AfD. The new source adds nothing. It is two trivial mentions, absolutely no commentary, from a connected source. PORNBIO is a farce of a guideline. Ask anyone supporting catalogues of porn actors for having Misplaced Pages standalone biographies to declare any COI with the porn industry. --] (]) 12:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Endorse and speedy close'''. Erpert has been repeatedly warned about personalizing deletion discussions, but persists in this disruptive behavior. Absent any indication that such nominations for tinfoil trophies in minor categories meet the "well-known"/"significant" standard (preferably through nontrivial coverage by independent sources), there's no reason to go through this again. ] (]) 12:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:49, 30 November 2013
< 2013 November 28 Deletion review archives: 2013 November 2013 November 30 >29 November 2013
Finnbay
Reason for previous deletion couple months ago: Delete no indication of notability per WP:WEB, and no significant coverage online from WP:Secondary sources.
I spoke to Gogo Dodo on recreating Finnbay due to new sources and info (cause they exposed Time magazine's buff on news item and nokia's f.ck you message on twitter) I think it should be archived on wikipedia. They are linked by trust-able sources: http://www.helsinki.fi/newstudents/index.html (on the right, discover part) http://www.aalto.fi/en/for/international/ http://jyy.fi/en/2013/03/18/jyy-student-news-week-122013/ (bottom) http://www.travelhelsinki.net/notizie/ (publishing their news) http://www.finnfacts.fi/eng/facts-about-finland/useful-links/
Here are the new info and sources for the article and would like to add them to the page to improve the article.
<redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs)
{if you want us to look at a draft, please can you put it somewhere else as posting it here breaks up the formatting of this page. thanks Spartaz 20:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)}
Hi, Spartaz, Sure. It was just for you to check it out rather than a suggestion to use it for the new page but I put it on my page for you see it as a draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Campsite55#Finnbay_Draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Elexis Monroe
Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but the article should be restored because now that the 2014 XBIZ Award nominations have been announced, the subject has been nominated for two new non-scene-related awards (Girl/Girl Performer of the Year and Best Actress), thus passing WP:PORNBIO.
- But one more quick thing...I recently brought this to WP:AN and it was shot down by Spartaz for apparent forum-shopping and not providing decent sources, which is odd for two reasons:
- Re-evaluting the discussion was Spartaz's idea in the first place.
- The new source was listed directly in my rationale (how is this not a decent source?).
- It was also mentioned that WP:PORNBIO is disputed, which isn't 100% false, but...no one has commented on the discussion about it at all since October 11th (and I personally did not participate in it). Having no consensus on a guideline does not mean the guideline is invalid. Erpert 20:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Erpert 20:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- 1. Listing this at AN rather then DRV is clearly forum shopping and an attempt to override process to get the answer you want
- 2. Can you please stop personalising discussions? Focus on the content not the contributor
- 3. A list of nominations is not a detailed reliable secondary source for the purposes of meeting GNG.
- 4. Since you keep bringing up old history I'll remind you that AN endorsed the closing of the previous DRV and accepted that there was a problem with PORNBIO
- 5. The discussion may have tailed off but no-one has seriously argued against the fact that PORNBIO is disputed and this means that it is no longer a valid reason to argue that BLP articles that fail the GNG should be retained against the wider community consensus that BLP requires decent sourcing.
- 6. If you can get a consensus to rewrite PORNBIO in a way that does meet wider community expectations then I expect it will no longer be disputed.
- 7. Elexis Munro has been nominated as one of 15 people in the girl/girl category and one of 11 in what is not best actress as you asserted but the least important of the 4 sub catagories - Best Actress - All-Girl Release. To my mind this isn't isn't enough to override the GNG but I'd be open minded in allowing a relist Spartaz 21:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Doing exactly what you suggested I do is forum-shopping? If so, why did you suggest it? And you really need to retire the "personalizing" argument because you apparently have a different definition for the word than I have (I've asked you numerous times how I'm personalizing anything and you never responded). But if you're allowing a relist, at least we're getting somewhere. Erpert 05:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Endorse. Unambiguous AfD. The new source adds nothing. It is two trivial mentions, absolutely no commentary, from a connected source. PORNBIO is a farce of a guideline. Ask anyone supporting catalogues of porn actors for having Misplaced Pages standalone biographies to declare any COI with the porn industry. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Endorse and speedy close. Erpert has been repeatedly warned about personalizing deletion discussions, but persists in this disruptive behavior. Absent any indication that such nominations for tinfoil trophies in minor categories meet the "well-known"/"significant" standard (preferably through nontrivial coverage by independent sources), there's no reason to go through this again. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)