Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capri Anderson (2nd nomination)

Capri Anderson

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

This was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capri Anderson at the time of the incident with Charlie Sheen as a BLP1E and this was endorsed at DRV. For some reason this was unsalted last month and recreated on the basis of a notability guideline (PORNBIO) that is depreciated and no longer reflective of the community's view on BLP content. Being nominated for AVNs isn;r the same as having in depth mainstream coverage and what there is is fairly negative and reflects one event. On this basis there is no justification for an article under BLP1E which has precedence over PORNBIO as there are not the sources to show the AVN nominations are independantly notable events. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem? Are you just going around, trying to delete articles I created? (And WP:PORNBIO is not deprecated; it's under discussion.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the nominator of the original AfD, I feel her multiple nominations establish notability beyond just that one event. Not only is PORNBIO is satisfied, so is WP:ANYBIO. The criteria flaw that the current nominator sees is apparent in ANYBIO but I don't see him arguing against ANYBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the issues that resulted in the first delete are not present this time around. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given her multiple AVN nominations, spread over multiple years (2011-2012), and the Sheen scandal she passes the notability criteria. – fdewaele, 13 April 2012, 14:15 (CET).
Delete contains speculative statements which could lead to a lawsuit. WP:PORNBIO arguments not relevent as per nominator's arguements. BO; talk 19:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lawsuit against Wikipedia? I doubt. Any statement is well-referenced by multiple reliable sources such as CBS News, New York Times and New York Daily News. Cavarrone (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Morbidthoughts, problems of first nom were adressed, not more a BLP1E case. And anyway PORNBIO is not deprecated, it was simply tagged with a "disputedtag" by the same nominator a few hours before nominating this article for deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the prior AfD's conclusion of BLP1E. Meeting PORNBIO is irrelevant in the absence of reliable sources for her career which are absent, as they are in many cases. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not start the "PORNBIO is irrelevant" argument again. That consensus has not been met.
- Actually, why is this discussion even still open? It's been over seven days. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Charlie Sheen. We havew negligible reliable biographical information concerning her, and her notability/notoriety, inside and outside of the porn industry, reflects little beyond her association with Sheen. An article can be spun out later if sufficient reliable coverage appears. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Charlie Sheen - fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT - a standard WP:BLP1E. Arguments that she meets WP:PORNBIO should be ignored, as pornbio is depreciated. Hipocrite (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as per above to Charlie Sheen. Now, I also think that WP:USUAL applies as well - She is in the early days of what might end up being quite a career. So, when she wins those AVN awards or otherwise becomes notable, then an article would be appropriate. Put another way, would we be discussing her at all if it were not for the Charlie Sheen thing? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E status hasn't changed, pornbio is irrelevant for an otherwise non-notable individual. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as per UltraExactZZ. Currently meets PORNBIO (which is only as depreciated as AfD participants decide it is), but is unlikely to meet PORNBIO once it undergoes its inevitable tightening in the near future. Epbr123 (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the tightening hasn't happened yet. And if WP:BLP1E were still the case, would the original closing admin have unsalted it (or if not that, couldn't it have been redirected to Charlie Sheen back then)? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as a BLP1E who shouldn't have an article in her own right. She may well meet WP:PORNBIO, but to me that's just further evidence that PORNBIO is a bad notability guideline which shouldn't be followed. Robofish (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep almost a borderline bad faith nominations, especially when considering the publicity from the charlie sheen incident which was widely covered. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: the pornbio stuff (alleged notability because of industry award nominations) is irrelevant, and as several others have said, the wording in PORNBIO simply doesn't reflect current project-wide standards. If it's not formally deprecated yet, let's deprecate it here and now, by demonstrating how we ignore it. For everything else in the article, the WP:BLP1E-based decision of the old AfD still applies. Thus no reason to revise the old decision. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Let's deprecate it here and now"? Come on, you're an admin; you know that's not how it works. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 10:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect:small merge with Charlie Sheen if required as per HWolf. - Youreallycan 09:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Sheen incident fails WP:BLP1E (and is not mentioned at Charlie Sheen, so a redirect there would not be helpful). The porn award nominations do not convey notability, and the WP:PORNBIO guideline is too disputed to reflect community consensus. Nothing else appears to make the subject notable. Sandstein 10:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP is NOT TABLOID. As mentioned, PORNBIO is only as deprecated as we want to consider it deprecated, and I think the consensus is that it is indeed much too lax. We need not wait for a formal rule, because we make the guidelines by what we do here. When we come to revise it, what wit will say will then describe what we do. Many of our guidelines are informal guidelines because it is easier to reach majority agreement on individual cases than get the supermajority to revise the wording of a rule. I would be very reluctant to make even the redirect. DGG ( talk ) 15:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why this AfD is still even open considering it's been over two weeks, but at any rate, I've noticed that most of the people !voting "delete" are the same people that !voted that way in previous pornography-related AfDs by me; that, or were against having WP:PORNBIO at all. How about hearing some outside points of view? (And despite what those !voters may want to interpret things, not having consensus on how to change a guideline doesn't mean to ignore or delete it. When an AfD, for example, is closed as "no consensus", it still exists, doesn't it?) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 16:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]