Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi (actress)

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. Of the four "keep"s, only one actually discusses reasons for notability and sourcing. Sandstein 19:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi (actress)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Humbug! 10:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia policy for stuff we don't like. GuzzyG (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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 wikipedia bios that number is very high. GuzzyG (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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 Malkova Gracie 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)[reply]

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

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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment As per WP:NOTCENSORED, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable." Unscintillating (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Speedy keep AFD is not the appropriate place to try to change the notability guidelines, and nom acknowledges that subject satisfies WP:PORNBIO. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- for lack of reliable 3rd party sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail (WP:N). Having participated in a number of WP:PORBIO AfDs, my impression is that the SNG in question is largely not credible. That is, a technical pass at the SNG does not necessarily mean that the subject would have garnered sufficient coverage for a stand-alone bio article; see WP:WHYN. It's a "delete" for me in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHYN is not a part of the standard, and hasn't been for years. WP:N is not a content guideline...our core content policies take that role. WP:N "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow", and chronic grousing against WP:N's subject-specific guidelines does not fall into the category of common sense or an occasional exception. Common sense is that if some editors are using standard a, and other editors are using standard b, the project will be the victim. Editors have tried to change PORNBIO, and the community has refused. Your grousing is an admission that the topic passes WP:PORNBIO as per community consensus, and that you can't refute the evidence. Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nominator accurately notes, a disputable, technical pass of the applicable SNG is outweighed by broad failure to meet the GNG. When dealing with BLPs in sensitive areas, it's particularly important to keep in mind that such an SNG only creates a presumption that the subject is notable enough for an article, and that broad failure to meet the GNG ia generally sufficient to refute that presumption. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nb. I closed this discussion with a no consensus result, but per discussion on my talk page, I have re-opened it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NA1000 for reopening. I’d like to bring in The Drv for Lana Rhoades which clearly demonstrates the point that pornbio doesn’t trump gng and that if you can’t source it, a technical pass is no defense. On that basis the keep votes so far are non-policy based and should not be given as much weight in the close as the delete votes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV couldn't have discussed sourcing if they wanted to, because (1) the article considered at the RFC/AFD had been deleted and was not temp undeleted for the DRV, and (2) the RFC/AFD closer did not identify BLP issues in the close. Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As shown at the DRV, WP:N places GNG on a level playing field with PORNBIO. It was also shown in the DRV that a defender of GNG could not explain how to apply the standard, meaning that GNG is as much vaporware as it is a standard. Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV raises other questions, one of which is why Spartaz, who last I heard is an administrator, allowed the original RFC/AfD to remain posted in an AFD forum. Spartaz was also first in line at the DRV, and allowed the DRV to proceed even though the closing administrator of the RFC/AfD had not been contacted. Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was shown at the DRV that there was consensus at the original RFC that one of the points of evidence satisfied PORNBIO. It was also shown that no delete !vote presented evidence that the topic failed GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There were four major procedural errors in the RFC/AFD close identified at the DRV, none of which the DRV closer explained. Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those arguments were rejected all but unanimously by the other DRV participants. They're now pretty much a road map to insufficient support for notability claims. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A DRV dominated by vote counting is a roadmap for continued defiance of the rule of law? This DRV should be a call to action to restore the rule of law to Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unscintillating Since the DRV was closed as endorse and you were the only person arguing otherwise and your arguments remain based on your own understanding of the guidelines that no-one else in the world shares, I really do fail to follow what ever point it is you are trying to make. I also see that once again your argument is supported by ad homs against me that have no relevance to the discussion. Please remove them unless you would like me to find an independent admin at ANI to review them as personal attacks. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was your choice to "bring in" the DRV, and now the DRV discussion has moved to the rule of law. It is a legitimate question as to why both the AfD and DRV processes continued without administrative intervention.
Take a look at what WP:PERPOLICY says, "Even if ten editors state an article should be deleted, and one editor states the article should be kept, but the one who wants it kept gives a good argument citing policy, while the other ten give none, this is sufficient grounds for keeping an article." Unscintillating (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO. Passing porn actress, not particularly notable based on the article and the cited reports. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject neither meets basic WP:GNG nor specific WP:PORNBIO. There is no significant coverage of her directly and this coverage is what largely defines GNG to us which in turn gives either subsequent inclusion or deletion. — Ammarpad (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how those !voting Keep/Speedy Keep have nitpicked over the noms rationale but not one of them have provided any sources to establish whether GNG or PORNBIO is met, Well they've not provided any because there isn't any. –Davey2010^Talk 12:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability exists outside of the unsupported opinions of our editors. Ipse dixit? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as not notable (and with promotional content). Of her three awards, two are explicitly for beginners, and that translates in WP terms as not yet notable Some discussion of her personal sexual interests is not irrelevant in this field, but the extent of it , including the quotation, is promotional for her work. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 15 November 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.