Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PornstarGlobal: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:21, 27 October 2011

PornstarGlobal

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

Non-notable company. Its references are trivial and any coverage fails WP:CORP because AVN and XBIZ are of limited interest and circulation. Article was also created by an SPA, likely an employee of a company that has a history of spamming wikipedia.[1][2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable company. Source are nil, fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Adult entity is very well known, reputable, and many references are available to anyone online, I simply didn't have the time to complete the entire Article. I'm not sure why Morbidthoughts insists that I am an Employee? I'm fairly sure an Actual Wikipedia Admin advised him to stop singling out this particular issue some months ago. I know music, and I know porn, that's all I can tell you. A couple random editors don't like the PornStarGlobal site from some things that made them mad in the past, but I can't help that, nor does it change the facts [3]. I didn't even post the link to the site itself, and this article has been thriving for months. Morbidthoughts is making my contributions feel unwelcomed, and I advise that his obvious obsession with this particular issue be looked into. Solidcontrib (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Nymf _hideliho! 05:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have requested Mediation. Please see: [4] and [5] Solidcontrib (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation has been suspended pending the outcome of this AfD. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (MedCab coordinator) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as those that propose this deletion are acting with bias that does not run parallel with Wikipedia Guidelines. No thought of merging, expansion, clean-up, or use of appropriate mechanisms rather than deletion were considered before AFD[6]. The Article in question does in fact have some useful content and at the very least should have gone through a standard cleanup, disputed, or expert-subject chain of consideration, opposed to it's instant Nomination for Deletion. I encourage Morbidthoughts to justify his acceptance of many other AVN and XBIZ references in numerous Articles including the Awards Section of [7] which clearly has both [8] and [9] listed as Notable Articles / References, but then states that "references are trivial and any coverage fails because AVN and XBIZ are of limited interest and circulation" above when pertaining to PornstarGlobal [10]. As stated on the Mediation Page, there are bountiful References Online in regard to PornStarGlobal some of which are / were listed within the Article, but not evident at all on Articles such as: [11] for example. I would also like to encourage Morbidthoughts to validate his accusation above referring to my being an SPA. My validation of less than honest intentions lies within the visible * Delete votes - an example would be Carrite making the uninvestigated assumption that the Article is a "non-notable company, sources are nil, and it fails GNG", when in reality it carries twice the citation, reference, and notability weight as his own Company Wikipedia page Mutant Pop Records. Do I personally know Mark Hanford[12], one of the actual staples of the Mutant Pop vision, and Mutant Pop Radio Show DJ from Boise ID. in the 80's, yes. Would I propose Mutant Pop Records be deleted because of the lack of some obviously overlooked pertinent information, no, I would follow procedure and give it the benefit of the doubt without allowing personal opinion and favoritism to cloud my judgment. Solidcontrib (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First WP:CORP clearly states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". This guideline is not in WP:BIO which may explain why the biographical articles like Ms. Karter can rely on coverage from these sources as indications of notability. As for the accusation that you are an SPA, the first substantive edits you made (starting June 1, 2011) were to promote pornstarglobal by adding their awards to multiple performer pages. When they were consistently removed from the biographies by other editors for being non-notable, you decided to create a page on pornstarglobal itself. It was only long after you were first accused of being an SPA that you began to diversify your edits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I cant see any justification in the paragraph above as it only defines the exact concerns I was referring to. I was searching for this page as well: accused of being an SPA, but could not find it so I thank you for posting because it once again displays evidence of your bias in thinking that Article creation = promotion of Article subject, which it most certainly does not. One could dig deeper and assume there is technically no way to avoid promotion completely when creating a public Article. I don't feel I need to explain why I chose this particular subject / site to write an Article about nor do I understand your reasoning in that active participants in the Wikipedia Community should not diversify their your edits. It seems to me as if you simply jumped the gun and didn't have time to scan over my contributions before hastily nominating this Article for Deletion and making unwarranted accusations because of your past issues with these people. Aside from the improper course / chain of deletion you displayed, I would say you hadn't done any research at all, because if you had you would know that there have only been 2 award winners, not multiple. I felt that going back and trying to make the Article better the 2nd time around would be beneficial, and again, their URL has never been posted anywhere on the Article nor the 2 award winners pages. I get the impression that no matter what happens, you made a choice to dislike these individuals 3 years ago and will never have an open mind to anything related to their name. Solidcontrib (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 *'''Keep''' as those that propose this deletion are acting with bias that does not run parallel with Wikipedia Guidelines. No thought of merging, expansion, clean-up, or use of appropriate mechanisms ''rather than deletion'' were considered before AFD[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion]. The Article in question does in fact have some useful content and at the very least should have gone through a standard cleanup, disputed, or expert-subject chain of consideration, opposed to it's instant Nomination for Deletion. I encourage [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] to justify his acceptance of many other AVN and XBIZ references in numerous Articles including the Awards Section of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kagney_Linn_Karter] which clearly has both [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVN_Award] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBIZ_Award] listed as Notable Articles / References, but then states that "references are trivial and any coverage fails because AVN and XBIZ are of limited interest and circulation" above when pertaining to PornstarGlobal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PornstarGlobal]. As stated on the Mediation Page, there are bountiful References Online in regard to PornStarGlobal some of which are / were listed within the Article, but not evident at all on Articles such as: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRCO_Award] for example. I would also like to encourage [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] to validate his accusation above referring to my being an SPA. My validation of less than honest intentions lies within the visible * '''Delete''' votes - an example would be [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] making the uninvestigated assumption that the Article is a "non-notable company, sources are nil, and it fails GNG", when in reality it carries twice the citation, reference, and notability weight as his own Company Wikipedia page [[Mutant Pop Records]]. Do I personally know Mark Hanford[http://zinewiki.com/Mark_Hanford], one of the actual staples of the Mutant Pop vision, and Mutant Pop Radio Show DJ from Boise ID. in the 80's, yes. Would I propose [[Mutant Pop Records]] be deleted because of the lack of some obviously overlooked pertinent information, no, I would follow procedure and give it the benefit of the doubt without allowing personal opinion and favoritism to cloud my judgment.  [[User:Solidcontrib|Solidcontrib]] ([[User talk:Solidcontrib|talk]]) 16:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 :*First [[WP:CORP]] clearly states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". This guideline is not in [[WP:BIO]] which may explain why the biographical articles like Ms. Karter can rely on coverage from these sources as indications of notability. As for the accusation that you are an SPA, the first substantive edits you made (starting June 1, 2011) were to promote pornstarglobal by adding their awards to multiple performer pages. When they were consistently removed from the biographies by other editors for being non-notable, you decided to create a page on pornstarglobal itself. It was only long after you were [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PornstarGlobal|first accused of being an SPA]] that you began to diversify your edits. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 22:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
+::*I'm sorry but I cant see any justification in the paragraph above as it only defines the exact concerns I was referring to. I was searching for this page as well: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PornstarGlobal|accused of being an SPA]], but could not find it so I thank you for posting because it once again displays evidence of your bias in thinking that Article creation = promotion of Article subject, which it most certainly does not. One could dig deeper and assume there is technically no way to avoid promotion completely when creating a public Article. I don't feel I need to explain why I chose this particular subject / site to write an Article about nor do I understand your reasoning in that active participants in the Wikipedia Community should not diversify their your edits. It seems to me as if you simply jumped the gun and didn't have time to scan over my contributions before hastily nominating this Article for Deletion and making unwarranted accusations because of your past issues with these people. Aside from the improper course / chain of deletion you displayed, I would say you hadn't done any research at all, because if you had you would know that there have only been 2 award winners, not multiple. I felt that going back and trying to make the Article better the 2nd time around would be beneficial, and again, their URL has never been posted anywhere on the Article nor the 2 award winners pages. I get the impression that no matter what happens, you made a choice to dislike these individuals 3 years ago and will never have an open mind to anything related to their name. [[User:Solidcontrib|Solidcontrib]] ([[User talk:Solidcontrib|talk]]) 00:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)