| Revision as of 19:56, 26 April 2012 editGaijin42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,866 edits →Capri Anderson: speedy keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:39, 28 April 2012 edit undoFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,218 edits →Capri Anderson: d/rNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| *'''Delete or Redirect''' as a BLP1E who shouldn't have an article in her own right. She may well meet ], but to me that's just further evidence that PORNBIO is a bad notability guideline which shouldn't be followed. ] (]) 15:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC) | *'''Delete or Redirect''' as a BLP1E who shouldn't have an article in her own right. She may well meet ], but to me that's just further evidence that PORNBIO is a bad notability guideline which shouldn't be followed. ] (]) 15:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *'''speedy keep''' almost a borderline bad faith nominations, especially when considering the publicity from the charlie sheen incident which was widely covered. ] (]) 19:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | *'''speedy keep''' almost a borderline bad faith nominations, especially when considering the publicity from the charlie sheen incident which was widely covered. ] (]) 19:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *'''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 ]-based decision of the old AfD still applies. Thus no reason to revise the old decision. ] ] 08:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:39, 28 April 2012
Capri Anderson
AfDs for this article:- Capri Anderson (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)
This was previously deleted at Misplaced Pages: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 18:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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 18:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- In addition, the issues that resulted in the first delete are not present this time around. Erpert 06:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- A lawsuit against Misplaced Pages? 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 07:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 ~ Did 12:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:BLP1E status hasn't changed, pornbio is irrelevant for an otherwise non-notable individual. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 19:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)