Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 08:54, 13 March 2023

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. – Juliancolton |  00:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Henessy

Henessy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails GNG & PORNBIO. Scene related awards don't count and she isn't the first if our article on Vicca is to be believed. The two sources don't pass muster. KP is an interview and therefore primary and the other (Lifenews) is an interview of her husband that lacks a byline and therefore appears dubious. Spartaz 00:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - won - AVN Award, meets of WP:PORNBIO. And also - notable, in general. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 08:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - Won award, meets WP:PORNBIO. removed per Snowsuit Wearer --Savonneux (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - http://www.kp.ru/daily/26341.4/3224253/ - interview, http://www.kp.ru/daily/26335.4/3217938/ - article covering award, http://www.sovsport.ru/gazeta/article-item/793778 - not super classy but coverage --Savonneux (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The daily mail is coverage too but we wouldn't rely on that as coverage for a BLP. KP is a tabloid and very much yellow press. I wouldn't give it more priority then the mail. Sovsport seems very tabloid too (and yes, I did read the sources (as best I can - my Russian is quite rusty) but they are not reliable sources for the GNG in my mind. WP:TABLOID#2 applies. Spartaz 10:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      • WP:TABLOID is about articles or article content that are about an event, as in "wikipedia is not a newspaper." This article is not about an event or an item of news coverage, it's a bio. I was just pointing to them as general notoriety.--Savonneux (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Notoriety is not what we judge a BLP by and I have actually examined the sources and commented about why they are not RS in my opinion. KP is a tabloid and we don't source BLPs from tabloids. Spartaz 22:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Im not denying that that they're fluff pieces but you seem to have a strange view of what constitutes WP:RS. It's published, it's been around since 1925 and it's used as a source on many other wikipedia articles. Indeed WP:BLP has no specific guidance on secondary sources.--Savonneux (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
            • But the WP:GNG Does and KP is no more a reliable source now its a tabloid then when it was a mouthpiece for the Soviet government. Spartaz 08:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO since the AVN "Best Sex Scene in a Foreign-Shot Production" which she won meets the criterium "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 18:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 00:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, because I forgot that I had written this article. This was stupid from me. Also, I don't want to contribute to English Misplaced Pages.--Waylesange (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - per sources given by Savonneux along with . I don't disqualify sources simply because they publish in the tabloid format nor if they choose to cover fluffier topics. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• 1 is on a news agregator that can be edited by the public - see "If you find a mistake in the text, select it with the mouse and press Ctrl + Enter /Если вы нашли ошибку в тексте, выделите её мышью и нажмите Ctrl+Enter" and the author is not staff "Группа: Посетители - Group - sudience or customers"
• 2 Internet "paper" and primary source/puff piece. No byline of the author
• 3 Ditto 3, routine reporting of a scene award and spends a lot of time attacking Americans for blocking Russian porn actresses. Still no byline and clearly not a RS
• 4 Reads like a reprinted press relwase (language similar to 2) and no byline and another unreliable online news aggregator
• 5 Tabloid tittle tattle and certainly not anything we can base an article on. The content is just bleh... Spartaz 08:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC).
• Keep - per Morbidthoughts.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Scene awards do not satisfy WP:PORNBIO, tabloids do not satisfy WP:RS. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:PORNBIO. The sources that have been provided are not reliable, as per Spartaz, so does not meet WP:GNG. ~ Rob 12:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. I won't discount sources merely because they are published in a tabloid format, but I won't credit them toward notability when they carry headlines like "Porn star offers soccer stud 16-hour sex romp for scoring spree". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

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.