Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janice Griffith

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 delete. So Why 06:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Griffith

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

This article appears to be about Janice Griffith (pornographic actress) but only as it relates to an incident wherein she was injured while being thrown into a pool. Sources used by User:Neptune's Trident include TMZ, The Daily Mail, and something called M Star News. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of general notability. bd2412 T 03:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pseudobiography based almost entirely on a stunt gone wrong. No WP:PORNBIO notability claim. No biographical depth found in reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some sources outside of the pool incident that has some bio information.[1][2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete daily mirror isn't an rs. It's not the dm but it's still a tabloid. Gng fail= goodbye, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion on the new sources mentioned
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy didnt you read the bit where I already discussed the sources, the daily mirror is a tabloid and isnt a rs. This therefore does not meet gng and fails. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I did. However, don't you think the other participants should be given the chance to offer their opinions as well? Regards So Why 08:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - its demonstratively a tabloid, that's factual not opinion. Clear consensus to delete exists. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, you should spare the "factual, not opinion" rhetoric in demonstratively expressing your opinion. Evaluating the reliability of a source is a subjective opinion.[3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per Gene93k and Spartaz. And since when is a 4-1 vote, all with reaasonable, guideline-based rationales, not enough for a consensus? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep added references in the form of a Further Reading list on the article, all somebody needs to do is incorporate it into text. I'm sure there's more too, this was just what I found from a quick Google research and not an in-depth scouring for sources. Soulbust (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- if this is your idea of a reliable source then you need to reread our policy. Its full of tabloids and other stuff that clearly is not a rs about this subject. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:56, 17 July 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.