Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:03, 5 November 2017

Naomi (actress)

Naomi (actress) (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)

Despite winning a best new starlet award we are left with no meaninful sources as required for a blp. Technical SNG passes do not equate to an article if the SNG is subordinate to GNG and it clearly fails GNG. Delete. Spartaz 10:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep "she passes policy, but delete anyway" is not a good argument. We decided to remove porn bios unless they had these awards, to change that, you have to change pornbio first. GuzzyG (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Would you argue that Mickey Murray is a technical sng pass with no gng value and should be deleted? And if not, then why on this? We shouldn't pick and choose Misplaced Pages policy for stuff we don't like. GuzzyG (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I would actually nominate the Mike Murray article for deletion, if I had not already nominated another today. I would fully urge you GuzzyG to nominate that article. If you do I promise to advocate for its deletion. Misplaced Pages needs to hold more to the reliable sources rule. If we require multiple significant film roles to make an actor notable, it is beyond bizarre that a sportsperson can be notable with a passing performance in one game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete WP:PORNBIO, like other SNG's, is meant to offer guidance about things that make it likely that a subject is notable. SNG's augment our general notability guideline, not replace it. She won the award in 2007 but there's a dearth of coverage in reliable sources in the subsequent decade and, since she's apparently left the industry, it's a dearth that's very likely to continue in decades to come. David in DC (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I found a mention of Naomi in a 2015 list, published by a Jewish news service (Jewish Telegraphic Agency), of Jewish porn stars. It sources her birth name and the fact that her father was a rabbi. I've inserted it. But I still don't think that gets us over the GNG hump. David in DC (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Normally i'd agree but if you were to nominate unsourcable and impossible to write about which severely fails GNG Mickey Murray for deletion the SNG relevant to Ice Hockey, would prevent it from being deleted with some chutzpah about "some sources" of newspapers briefly mentioning him playing.. I just find it funny that only porn get's editors with edit logs of literally months of only nominating pornbios for deletion, but when it comes to other GNG violations they do not care. Porn is in a sticky place on wiki as obviously mainstream sources won't cover it due to religious types and the only things that would cover it are tabloids or trade magazines which get put down as "promotional". Just seems absurd that over 600,000 people view a "non-notable" person's page, as someone who has an excel sheet full of tens of thousands of[REDACTED] bios that number is very high. GuzzyG (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Your argument here is an argument for deletion. You just admitted that the subject is not covered in reliable sources, which is exactly what is required to have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Passes WP:PORNBIO as best new starlet for avn is a well known and significant award as confirmed by prior consensus in AfDs for Abella Danger Mia MalkovaGracie Glam. The sources support for two paragraphs of content. What more do we need to know about her? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strong delete total failure of GNG. It is high time we stop using a special carve out to keep an inordinate number of articles on pornographic actresses. Misplaced Pages has been heavily attacked for the inordinate amount of space devoted to pornographic actresses for years. It is high time we fix this poor decision in coverage, and start removing articles on people who totally fail the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• This is a notability argument without analysis of the alternatives to deletion, WP:IGNORINGATD.  So the post hasn't tried to post a delete argument.  As per WP:N, GNG notability is no different than PORNBIO notability; so failing GNG, in the context here, is irrelevant anyway.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment  As per WP:NOTCENSORED, "Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable."  Unscintillating (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep WP:SK#1  No arguments for deletion.  Article is sourced, so there are no competent BLP arguments.  The GNG arguments are admitting that the topic passes WP:N, and they don't think their arguments rise to the level of IAR.  Arguments to change WP:N and subguidelines have been rejected by the community.  So what is left?  Speedy keep is the correct remedy.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates