Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 6: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:01, 6 January 2020

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 5 January	7 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 keep. (non-admin closure) --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jiz Lee

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

Delete: Not a notable pornographic film performer. Being one of a limited minority group in porn (such as genderqueer) does not automatically make that person or their work notable.--NL19931993 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been banned for being a sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet GNG under normal consideration of what it covers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you ignored citations 9, 13, 14, 15, 18 in the article? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I’d like to hear the reasoning why this subject met GNG in 2015, but no longer does. Did GNG change that much in scope? This subject has a generous amount of coverage that certainly seems to meet GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passing GNG was asserted and a few editors bought in to that. The article was kept by non-admin closure. However, a closer look at the sources presented shows that the Fox News article is the only one that passes muster as independent reliable source coverage. The Daily Mail is now banned as a reference for facts and as evidence of notability. Two links don't even mention the subject. Finally the university's listing of the subject as a speaker does not count as independent. The university's prestige was used as additional evidence of notability. Wikipedia doesn't work that way even for professors. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — voicing Johnpacklambert in-depth significant coverage is a big deal to me & I can’t observe it in the article about subject of our discussion. Furthermore I’m voicing NL19931993 I’ve been wanting to say that also, it’s as if belonging to the LGBTQ community has become an automatic yardstick for notability.Celestina007 (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We see this a lot with claims of notability for very minor politicians. There are a few failed candidates who have been kept on the grounds that they got widespread press. I keep pointing out to people this was name dropping and not analysis of their position, one of them ran a much less significant than most campaign for the US senate, but too often the response is "they were mentioned in the New York Times, they are notable", without any consideration of the true depth of the articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passing the GNG. These citations were already in the article.[1][2][3][4]. Her scholarly writings are widely cited by journal articles satisfying WP:AUTHOR.[5][6][7][8][9] Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is a bit misleading, as they're at least as (almost definitely more) notable as a writer and activist. It clearly seems to pass GNG to me: it's hardly thinly-sourced so I don't get why attacking that someone cited Fox or the Daily Mail at one stage has anything to say about notability at all. Beyond that, Lee is just a pretty well-known figure (I've got no particular interest in anything they've done and I've still definitely heard of them as a queer woman on the other side of the world). The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG, and possibly other criteria. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the many academic citations. Toughpigs (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Totally relevant. Super over these weird nominations. This is the second one about LGBTQ people I've came across - both notable - by the same nominator. Missvain (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2020 (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.

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. Tone 19:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too Blessed to be Stressed

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

Unsourced stub of unremarkable television programme with no notable participants and no independent commentary. Sirlanz (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2020 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Tea

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

One is a meta-reference to a hoax article; the other two are partial title matches, and the "green tea with gold leaf" is not supported by the source which seems to be a personal website anyway. There is no specific entity on Wikipedia by the exact name "gold tea", so this is an invalid disambig page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no articlespace content fulfills MOS:DABMENTION. MarginalCost (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Enwiki has no notable mentions of "Gold Tea". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are not a search index per WP:PTM. I fail to see how this would help our readers more than just searching per WP:D Lightburst (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2020 (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.

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. The status of the nominator notwithstanding, the consensus of the discussion by other editors is that this person does not meet our notability requirements. RL0919 (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jada Stevens

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

Delete: Not a notable pornographic film performer.--NL19931993 (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bunch of directory listings and promotional PR sources does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since all we have and all we find are porn related media, awards and promotions. With nothing beyond that, our subject fails WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't find her own work also biography related to reliable source. subject fails WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 21:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete To me it’s a borderline situation; if she had just a few more reliable sources I would say keep. (Aside: It’s kinda confusing when the nominator also votes, kinda redundant). ⌚️ (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The opening nomination of an AfD is a delete vote, that also includes a mandatory rationale. It is a terse, but not unusual, way for some nominators to format their nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: being listed on CNBC's 2015 list of the most popular porn stars seems to satisfy WP:NACTOR #2, "has a large fan base". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source you cite indicates simply that our subject got a lot of "online votes" (without accounting for double voting) for "popular female porn stars," a process that the reporter gauged through looking at the "average of the stars’ Google Trends ranking." Not much there, wouldn't you agree? (And google searches & numbers are not supposed to be used to help identify a subject's notability.) -The Gnome (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, but there's a difference between using WP:GHITS to determine notability and using independent, published sources. The author and/or editors of the CNBC piece decided that online votes and Google Trends were worth reporting on. Whether that was a valid decision has nothing to do with our own notability guidelines. I agree there's not much there, which is why I said "weak keep". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep on using same rationale, 90% of biographical articles related to porn sector would be deleted. There was a reason why WP:PORNBIO was created in the first place. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia are made more strict, then it is to be expected that a number of articles will disappear, along with other changes possibly happening, such as use of references. This is exactly the case with the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO. It is no longer valid - so articles that have appeared on the basis of WP:PORNBIO are bound to be re-evaluated. And if this means deletion, then deletion it shall be, of one article or of one thousand articles. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2020 (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.

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. Does not meet notability requirements Nosebagbear (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rock'n August

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

Article about a community festival, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for events. This is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as its own self-published website about itself and the self-published websites of organizations that have sponsorship affiliations with it, and features no evidence whatsoever of any notability-building media coverage about it. Furthermore, even though the event's website verifies that it's still in existence today, the article is so poorly maintained that it still describes the 2010 event as upcoming and has never been updated for any year since 2010. As always, the notability test for something like this is not the ability to use its own primary source web presence as technical verification that it exists — it's the ability to show that the event has been the subject of sufficient media coverage to clear WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to see if I can find reliable sources that establish notability in the next few days. There may not be enough, we shall see-- but that it has not been updated lately is not a good argument for deletion. Discant X 13:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find anything outside of routine coverage such as in event listings. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Ultimately a brief mention in St. Albert, Alberta may be all that is warranted, if at all. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet GNG. Missvain (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2020 (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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jiz Lee (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Blessed to be Stressed}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Tea (2nd nomination)}}