Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:11, 1 September 2016

Nicole Aniston

• Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston
• Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston (2nd nomination)

Nicole Aniston (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)

Subject fails PORNBIO due to lack of significant awards; only nominations are present. No significant RS coverage can be found to meet GNG. Previous AfD closed as keep, but sourcing is still unconvincing. As an alternative to deletion, the article can be redirected (after delete) to List of Penthouse Pets. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable porn actress, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 05:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Lacks sufficient independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep  Notability was confirmed at the first AfD, and notability is not temporary.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I don't believe that AfD discussions "confirm notability". Instead, their purpose is to determine consensus on whether an article should be retained or deleted. Such consensus can change. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Winning an award is not the sole criteria for notability. 2,557 page views per day on Misplaced Pages is very impressive. She is a very popular Performer.

She’s very popular on social media. 273 thousand followers on Twitter. Over 100 thousand followers on Instagram. Over 100 thousand Likes on FaceBook. Glenn Francis (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not a convincing argument and does not address WP:BLP requirements for high quality sources, to wit: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons...such material...must adhere...strictly to this policy, and to Misplaced Pages's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)...be very firm about the use of high-quality sources " (the underline is mine).

Page views are not even considered in any content policies or notability guidelines (per WP:GNG). Asserting she is a popular performer generally or on social media without reliable sources is a POV statement. Twitter is not considered a reliable source per WP:RS (lacks independent reporting standards). Instagram is not considered a reliable source (lacks independent reporting standards), and Facebook is not considered a reliable source (lacks independent reporting standards). To satisfy the requirements for BLP, the subject must have acceptable reliable sourcing RS that bring it to GNG or BIO standards. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per above two comments. 173.70.163.96 (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete the arguments for keep are very unconvincing and do not address BLP requirements for high quality sources. The arguments for keep in the last Afd are also very unconvincing. One editor in the last AfD claims "While nice, non-industry coverage is not a policy nor a guideline." in fact it is very much connected to policy and guidelines because "non-industry coverage" translates into independent coverage which is a requirement for BLP in that it must satisfy GNG or even BIO. The same editor continues with. "It is reasonable that she would receive coverage in and for the industry for which she works". I agree that it is reasonable in the sense of the word, but not reasonable when using this coverage for indicating notability. This person then finishes with "PORNBIO does not supersede the GNG." I believe that is the only correct portion of this particular Ivote.

Another Ivoter in the former AfD said, "Sufficient sources suggests she meets the WP:GNG." Well this actually seems to be a misreading of GNG. It is the type of sources that determine the subject passing GNG. In this case, the sources do not suggest or indicate meeting GNG. Industry related promotional materials are not independent of the subject. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are what is needed. As an aside, she also fails PORNBIO because she has received only nominations. So, there is no way to establish notability for this person. Redirect after delete is acceptable to me. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete She has won no significant awards. There is no significant coverage of her in reliable, independent sources. Neither x number of page views nor x number of social media followers confers notability, and such arguments are based neither in policies nor in guidelines. If those numbers are so impressive (which they aren't), then reliable independent sources would have been so impressed that they would have devoted significant coverage to her (which they haven't). Cullen Let's discuss it 06:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates