Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy Barry (4th nomination)

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. So Why 12:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I was asked about it, here is my rationale: The main point of discussion was WP:PORNBIO, especially if the award she won is sufficient to establish notability, with people arguing equally for and against it. There was the argument that there is previous consensus to discount said award, however, the AFDs cited in favor of said consensus don't actually contain any discussion of the award itself, other than being mentioned by the nominator. So I don't think they alone can - without broader discussion at the related project pages - be considered established consensus against those awards' status regarding WP:PORNBIO. The rest of the !votes are along the lines of "still not notable, sources are not sufficient" vs. "definitely notable, sources are sufficient and/or sources definitely exist" with no side making a stronger argument. Whether the amount of sourcing is sufficient to establish notability is often open to interpretation and thus consensus, but in this case, there simply was none (regardless of whether the award is sufficient or not). Before renominating, consider a meta discussion of the award's "worthiness" to establish clear consensus, so nomination No. 5 will not have to be again about whether the award is sufficient or not. Regards So Why 07:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Barry

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreated biography of a non-notable porn star. Minor awards do not satisfy WP:PORNBIO as determined in the previous AfD. Still lacks non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. G4 declined due to lots of new citations, but the reliable ones are trivial mentions, not about the subject. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE AND SALT per nom (4th time should be the charm). Quis separabit? 14:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Previous vote to last was to keep - so odd that another vote came in this year and was only voted on by 3 people all to delete. Has won several awards, including Life Time Achievment at the UK Adult Film Awards and is about as famous as a British porn star can be - to the point that she starred as her self in Channel 4 series Skins. She is also a director of a leading UK porn production company. It's not surprising that there are not more web references for a porn star who was at her most famous in the 1990's and early 2000's as so many article will have vanished over the years - this is "possibly" where common sense needs to be applied especially when there are articles on thousands of US porn stars very few people have heard of.Tbone556 (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines have been tightened significantly since the 2008 consensus to keep. The working consensus now is that UK Adult Film Awards do not count as major as far as PORNBIO is concerned. Also PORNBIO without significant reliable source coverage is no longer an automatic keep. Finally, Wikipedia does not have thousands of porn star articles, and weakly sourced articles about American performers are also being culled. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A working consensus amongst a select (small) number of editors? Can you name a more significant UK pornographic award? Exactly. Barry is a very famous, clearly notable British porn star who is so well known that she has appeared in a mainstream TV show as herself, co-runs a leading porn production company and has her own line of DVDs. She isn't some vaguely known porn star. Tbone556 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - Fails GNG; porn standards have been tightened here over the last five years, reflected in the assessment last time at AfD that this was a non-notable subject.~~ Carrite (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now neutral on this one. I think there's a case to be made if sources are mustered, although finding good sources might be a challenge. Definitely should NOT be salted, no matter the outcome. Carrite (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not standards, it's a an anti-porn bias highlighted by the first vote where an editor seems to relish in the idea of article re-creation being blocked - maybe they have a crystal ball. I also think a world famous British porn star is more notable than a Pakistani hairdresser, whose short article has 6 references, but whatever. Tbone556 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the research, but I can't believe sources can't be found to establish Barry's notability. I'm not British, but my impression is that she was one of the most prominent British porn actresses of her time. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is - I would have thought a request for better or more refs would be more relevant and helpful than a desire to delete. Personally, I'm amazed that the article is up for deletion, as she IS one of the most famous British porn stars everTbone556 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those three previous deletion nominations caught my eye. Unless Gene93k can cite the discussion that decided on it so we can see how it was decided, an assertion that "The working consensus now is that UK Adult Film Awards do not count as major as far as PORNBIO is concerned" looks like cultural bias. An indication that Malik Shabazz may be right about her notability is that she is mentioned in a 2014 mainstream media report, years after the particular event event that concerned her happened, as an example of one of the "stars" a cosmetic surgeon had operated on [1]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Moore (2nd nomination) set the precedent. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Moist, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keisha Kane Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracey Lain and Cathy Barry followed. The UKAFTA was a short-lived (2006–2008) award sponsored by one producer to promote the industry. It falls short of the significant industry award test in WP:PORNBIO. As for cultural bias, AVN Hall of Fame inclusion no longer gets an article automatically. Systemic bias against the UK. Really? • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - Still no evidence of notability, Salting ... well that should speak for itself. –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the deletion argument is reasonable, but salting is not. This is a subject with a very large Google footprint and I share Malik's observation that the good sources are almost certainly out there. Carrite (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She may well have a large Google footprint etc etc but this article has now been created 4 times and deleted 3 times so Salting is now warranted, If there's good sources then they should be provided otherwise this article should be deleted and then salted. –Davey2010^Talk 12:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is incorrect from what I can see - the article has been deleted once and created twice.Gotoneonmeyeah (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As pointed out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Moore (2nd nomination), the UKAFTA awards lacked genuine significance and therefore fails the PORNBIO standard -- "winners" reported buying their awards, and awards went to films/videos before they were released, and even to ones that didn't exist/were never released. Note also that most of the text of this article is cut-and-pasted from the deleted article, withoutacknowledgment or proper attribution. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt because its a blp that still fails the gng. The new sources aren't about her and the logic of them is too redirect this to Liam Fox, which is patently nonsense. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The comments above got me wondering whether this subject wasn't a run of the mill porn star, but rather a public figure in the strata of Traci Lords, Seka, Marilyn Chambers, etc. It does seem that there is such a case to be made, but I'm still not finding anything that gets the subject over the GNG bar. Ping me if anything comes up, I'm now amenable to persuasion here. Carrite (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iconic UK porn star. Has appeared in an enormous array of porn films many of which are based on her and has won awards, has also appeared in several small films and on UK chat shows and documentaries including the BBC. I know she was voted Daily Sport Model Of The Decade once, but can no longer find a reference - would have to investigate archived websites. Skijump777 (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would agree that most porn stars are non-notable. However, this one most certainly is notable. Exceptionally well-known. Two out of three AfDs have resulted in a keep decision. No idea what the desperate urge to have the article deleted is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to agree with the previous comments of her being notable, and this article is hardly a stub, and is very well referenced. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously a notable figure with a career that has extended beyond merely appearing in porn films - and references-a-plenty.Gotoneonmeyeah (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- if the subject was indeed an "iconic star" this should be evident via 3rd party reliable sources. I don't see it in this case, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2017 (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.