Talk:Lana Rhoades

Reviewer Note

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades (4th nomination).

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades (2nd nomination).

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades.

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 October 30.

There is currently a redirect from Lana Rhoades to List of Penthouse Pets. The redirect is currently protected due to repeated re-creation. That protection should be left in place. It is still in order.

This draft is the zombie that just won't die

The previous user who swore they were going to work on this thing left it untouched since last October. @Thriley: what is the point here, because at the moment it just seems like an undeletion request for the sake of it. What new sources exist to give this article a prayer at returning to mainspace? Zaathras (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing such as the multi-page Playboy article and Grazia article haven't been discussed previously at AfD. Mbdfar (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Sourcing looks good. Thriley (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

In other words, the same junk as before, i.e. this is less than ideal. Can't wait for yet another round of AfD... Zaathras (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

why do you think the two sources mentioned above are junk? Mbdfar (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Zaathras:, just wondering if you would elaborate on your source assessment. Specifically, I'm genuinely curious as to your opinion of Grazia as a source, which I presume to be reliable, though I'm not sure it's been discussed previously. Consensus at WP:RS has shown that Playboy is a reliable source, and that article is certainly non-trivial. What do you think? Mbdfar (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

A gossip tabloid for the former and an interview (i.e. a primary source) for the latter. Zaathras (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Grazia is a gossip tabloid, by all accounts it seems to be a well established woman's magazine. What makes you so dismissive of it? I also question weather the playboy article can be dismissed as a mere interview. The author certainly did conduct an interview, and there are quotes in the article, but the author does proffer their own interpretation. Why does that not qualify it as a secondary source? The article is obviously one step removed from the subject. Mbdfar (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Reply

@S0091:, In reply to your comment on the main page, my arguments for the sourcing can be found at the last DRV. For everyone's sake I'll keep them there. In short, my WP:THREE (or 6) are Playboy, Grazia, GQ, G1, AVN, and Capital.com. I'm interested in your assessment of the Capital.com and Bitcoin News. The Capital article especially is written by an established journalist and seems to be independent and significant coverage. Could you also elaborate on what you mean by "Pop & Art"? Mbdfar (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. Move on. Zaathras (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I was literally pinged by the other user. Maybe you should move on. Mbdfar (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I will be here as long as you refuse to let go of a non-notable porn actress, my friend. Zaathras (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

One More Time

As we have discussed at the Articles for Creation talk page, I will be accepting this article, not because it is my opinion that it will survive AFD, but because it is my opinion that the community at AFD should decide whether to keep the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I've just updated the list of old AFD/DRV/MFD at the head of this page. Would you mind checking I have included everything, please? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLP information

I agree with Sangdeboeuf and Gene93k that WP:BLPPRIVACY requires reliable sources to be offered for biographical information added to this article. Anonymous editors and others should stop inserting unreferenced dates, children, and the like. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Revert

@Silver seren, the source literally states that “[s]he researched the likes of Jenna Jameson, Savannah and Sasha Grey—all successful adult-film stars—and by the age of 14 decided she wanted to be a porn star.” RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I realized that after reading the source closer. But also just putting that so bluntly would run pretty close to BLP issues, hence why I reworded it with info from the paragraph prior in the source. Silverseren^C 22:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"Amara Maple" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Amara Maple has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 20 § Amara Maple until a consensus is reached. PamD 06:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Her real name is confirmed in this interview about 35 mis in. Maybe a more reliable source is needed though. 2407:7000:9BD4:DF00:D1CE:6801:E472:C3E (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The YouTube channel of "Curious Mike" is indeed not reliable, being a user-generated source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of names and family information

Archived BLPN discussion [1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2023

kindly request the addition of Emily Rhoades to Lana Rhoades' Wikipedia page. Emily Rhoades is the half-sister of the adult film star Lana Rhoades, and she has made a name for herself as a Twitch streamer and an emerging content creator on TikTok, under the username 'EmaAhri'. This noteworthy connection sheds light on Lana Rhoades' family and her sister's activities in the online content creation space. KarlieKenzie (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLPNAME and provide reliable sources for this addition. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

March 10, 2024 revert

Three different edits were reverted in one edit with the terse edit summary "Please discuss changes on talk page". So this discussion is to give an opportunity to raise objections to any of the three edits that were reverted:

1. Use of the zoomed in photo file:Lana Rhoades cropped.jpg over the zoomed out photo file:Lana Rhoades 2-2017.jpg in the infobox
2. Addition of the birth name which uses the same reference as the birth date
3. Addition of details of "incident involving another performer".

Up the Walls (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I object to all three edits.

1. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. The image has been here from the start, the picture has the longstanding consensus of editors. You will have to convince me why your picture is more appropriate.
2. Birth name discussion has been covered on the talk page already (Talk:Lana_Rhoades#Unreferenced_BLP_information). You removed the editor note which suggested that you should see WP:BLPPRIVACY before adding a birth name. Allow me to point out a poignant excerpt from that page "The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified". Also see WP:BLPNAME: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."
3. Details of the incident should handled with WP:DUE weight. Given that it is a a contentious potentially one-sided and badly sourced statement, we should be sensitive about what impression is given. If people are interested in learning more, they are free to follow the reference. Also WP:BLPCRIME.

Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

1. WP:Wikipedia is not censored, but the cleavage adds no pertinent information about her. Any reader that wants to see cleavage or more can easily find it on the net. In my opinion, an image that zooms in on her face actually provides more information.
2. There are multiple references that uses her birth name: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], so I don't think "not been widely disseminated" applies
3. Seems to me that covering the issue with only 15 words conforms to WP:DUE. It is properly presented as a mere allegation, confirming to WP:BLPCRIME.

Up the Walls (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Given that she is notable for being a pornstar, you could argue that her cleavage adds pertinent information. Regardless, we don't crop people's bodies out of images.
2. You ignored the other half of the quote, it has also been intentionally concealed, such as ... [her] occupation. With regard to wide dissemination, the requirement for inclusion of her name is that it has been "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public", as per WP:BLPPRIVACY.
3. Per BLP:CRIME "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." The accusation of assault is an accusation of having commited a crime. Furthermore at the top of the page it says, "[c]ontentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." I couldn't find a reliable source that was able to confirm the sentence as you left it.

Pabsoluterince (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Notes

How could she film nearly 5000 video in only two years

Filming 5000 in 2 years means she made 7 films each day Its nearly impossible how is that 151.236.165.100 (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)