Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tarc (talk | contribs) at 18:32, 4 December 2010 (Undid revision 400488445 by Hixteilchen (talk) - you summarily cannot close discussions that you do not like, this is becoming a problem). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2010 December 1
2010 December 3 >

2 December 2010

Łagisza Power Station (closed)

Capri Anderson

Capri Anderson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Overturn to Keep. She clearly passes WP:PORNBIO with multible nominations. As you can see on AVN Awards nominees she was nominated 3 times in 2011. In the deletion disscusion the result should be no consensus, but the admin denied that. So I see no reason not to Keep the article now and I see an admin mistake in deleting this article and so I call deletion review. --Hixteilchen (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't edit your comments after they've been replied to or too long after they've been posted, it makes it difficult to keep track of what has been said and when and can alter the context of replies. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV is not AFD round 2, merely disagreeing with the result is not a DRV matter. PORNBIO is disputed and even that has a standard of "Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years", i.e. not multiple nominations in the same year (which I understand is pretty common). --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PORNBIO is a guideline to exclude Extra (actor). In general porn actors (see WP:Notability) are also notable as scientists and politicians. And with 3 nominations in 1 year she has proven that she is well-known in the industry. --Hixteilchen (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no generally as notable as anyone else, some scientists are notable some aren't, some politicians are notable, some aren't etc. Merely asserting that she is well-known in the industry doesn't make it so, and even if so doesn't make her meet the guidelines. The debate was closed in line with the policy and guideline based arguments, so no error in process. Your introduction of new material here doesn't meet the guideline you say it does and even that guideline is disputed. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I take you IP serious? No. Post with your real account or make some articles, but don´t interfer in this deletion review. I have made my point and I have written that I see big admin mistake. --Hixteilchen (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no requirement for me to register for an account, as to if you want to take me seriously, that's your choice. If what I am saying makes sense (i.e. that the guidline doesn't support your position) then I would think you'd want to address that, but frankly it makes no difference to me if you want to ignore that and just cross your fingers. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you'll also not be taking seriously the IP addresses posting the keep opinions in the AFD for this? That makes it a unanimous delete opinion... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I proved in other deletion reviews like Rachel Roxxx or Crissy Moran, there can be admin mistakes even if the actresses clearly pass the guidelines. The same case is here.--Hixteilchen (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fascinating where have I said admins never make mistakes? You still don't address the basic problem that the guideline says "in multiple years", yet you have only given a single year i.e. your new evidence doesn't meet the guideline you say it does. Additionally that was never mentioned in the deletion discussion, so no the admin didn't make a mistake regarding that, the admin can't go off and decide for themselves, they have to go by the discussion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don´t you understand it doesn´t matter for me what you say. --Hixteilchen (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - WP:PORNBIO is disputed at the moment, and I certainly do not give weight to the "nominee in multiple years" years pseudo-criteria. That is far too low of a bar for inclusion. The close was correct, consensus was measured properly for a marginal pornstar and a WP:BLP1E otherwise via the Sheen mess. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus as there was none reached at the AfD in question. The lack of any explanation to justify the close as deletion only makes this all the more difficult to understand why deletion was favored over retention. Alansohn (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closing admin. PORNBIO is disputed; I wouldn't give it too much weight atm. If you look at the first keep comment, it goes to two unusable sources: a wiki and a list of newspapers irrelevant to the article. The second keep comment does not give any verifiable RSs to show she is "well-known". The last keep comment is not policy-based; just because someone is looking on WP for information does not mean she is notable. Definitely not "no consensus", as the Sheen incident was clearly her claim to fame per the sources presented. (In any case, no consensus for BLPs should not usually end up as "keep".) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- from what I can see the delete votes are stronger and more grounded in policy than the keep ones. The only way this could be overturned is if we suddenly agreed that wikis and aggregations of unrelated information are reliable sources and treated AfD purely as a head count. Neither is the case, therefore I cannot see that Fetchcomms has made an administrative mistake that needs overturning. Reyk YO! 22:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    so you think AVN doesn´t post the right nominees? It is the host of the AVN Awards so it should be a reliable source...--Hixteilchen (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that's a disputed guideline and the guidline is nominations in multiple years, whereas you are pointing to nominations in a single year. So it doesn't meet the disputed guideline. Yes I know you'd rather stick your fingers in your ears and say "I'm not listening", so no need to reply to tell me that. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the correct result. None of the Keeps are based in policy, and the deletes most certainly are. Would have been better if the closing admin had explained his/her reasoning in the close though. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_December_2&oldid=400524565"