Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devon (actress) (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:17, 7 December 2021

Devon (actress)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This was kept almost 4 years ago based on arguments that no longer have the same value since pornbio has been discarded. What we have here is possibly one page in a book that the reference is more of the then boyfriend then her. Then there is a film review so that’s about the film and not her. Then a couple of interviews as part of the usual porn industry noise so not really anything we can use to determine notability. In short fails GNG and ENT. Another redirect to AVN HOF after deletion seems appropriate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I quote: Another redirect to AVN HOF after deletion seems appropriate" - this is the worst possibility. By what right do you want to create redirect from living person to an article about award? AVN HOF is just one of the awards gained by Devon. Create redirect from living person to an article about award of AVN HOF is without any common sense. Either keep artcile or delete article, you have no right to create pointless redirects. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 02:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep. Crazy, but role in Pirates counts as a WP:NACTOR-notable film, and being a Penthouse Pet ought to be enough to claim multiple notable productions. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only is your argument opinion without policy basis but you fail to address the lackmof sources. Penthouse has long not been a basis on which to keep unsourced blps. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable film role as well as a being a well known pinup girl featured in nation publications meet requirements.Super (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Another policy based opinion that does not address the gng deficiency. HOTTIE has been depreceated even longer than PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per
Shortcuts
she has met the criteria for Pirates alone as its a well known unique, very notable film. She has also been inducted in to the AV Hall of Fame. Is this AfD because its pornography related? If so a good explanation as to why av stars should be treated no different then any other profession can be found in the first AfD in a comment by User:Subtropical-manSuper (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy is tohat under. Aside from the fact that your comment makes no sense and that subtropical man’s contribution or porn afds were charactarised by ridiculous assertions of notability, lets address your assertions in details. Do you have a source to show her contribution to the film was significant and that it was unique? Regardless of that its not a policy based reason to keep as Pornbio has been removed. Ditto HoF not longer counts due to pornbio being removed. Ad hom claims just demonstrate you have no proper basis to argue keep. Av stars get treated the same as other entertainers. Do you have any sources at all please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable film role + the most important award in the porn industry ("Porn Oscars"). [here was a piece of text that - theoretically by some users - might have been defined as offensive - deleted by the author of comment at the request of the user Spartaz, as part of good will]. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly note this user was pinged so is a canvassed vote. Secondly, subtropical, eithee retract your sttements about me or I'll report you to ANI for a personal attack / poisoning of the well. Your choice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

actually a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASubtropical-man&type=revision&diff=1058651072&oldid=1056667499 fully canvassed vote. The closing admin will probably want to discard it. Thanks for the redaction anyway, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Pirates" the film being notable does not transfer notability onto the performers. They have to stand on their own, and this one does not. Awards & noms are irrelevant, as established in wp:pornbio deprecation. The usual AVN, XBIZ, and porn dvd listings are irrelevant. Interviews are primary, used to support stated facts in an article, not build notability. Would also note that the extreme hostility shown by this subtropical guy should see their "vote" stricken and possibly an escalation into a filing to have their behavior examined. Zaathras (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to intimidate other voters. I get it you do not like pornogaphy, lets keep our personal feelings out of this. A vote is a vote and we work off of consensus here.Super (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how you improperly solicited Subtropical man to come here, based on his agreement with you on this subject (a violation of WP:CANVASS), you have already done what you could to sabotage the discussion, and are in no position to lecture others. Zaathras (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Supercopone and user:Zaathras, this debate is pointless. Everyone had their own opinion on this matter, further discussion or quarrel does not make sense. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't pointless at all, but this isn't the proper venue to discuss it...ANI will be. Zaathras (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think if editors are working together the issue is not me and user: Subtropical-man Super (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zaathras excepting the last sentence, of which I have no opinion. nableezy - 20:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous consensus. The original consensus determined this page should stay based on WP:GNG not WP:PORNBIO. So nothing has changed. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

which sources pass the GNG? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the keep votes in the previous discussion violated WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You can't just vaguely point at a policy page and say "yep, meets it" without explaining which sources in particular you feel are sufficient. Zaathras (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PORNBIO was deprecated by consensus, making that vote based on literally nothing. nableezy - 17:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Did you read what he wrote? He said not Porn:Bio. Please explain what you are talking about?Super (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 ::Most of the keep votes in the previous discussion violated [[WP:JUSTAPOLICY]]. You can't just vaguely point at a policy page and say "yep, meets it" without explaining which sources in particular you feel are sufficient. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 21:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 ::WP:PORNBIO was deprecated by consensus, making that vote based on literally nothing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 17:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)</small>
+**Did you read what he wrote? He said not Porn:Bio. Please explain what you are talking about?[[User:Supercopone|Super]] ([[User talk:Supercopone|talk]]) 01:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)