Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Caprice (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Some reasonable criticism of the sources, but the consensus is that she gets in under WP:GNG. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Caprice

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Porn awards no longer confer notability and the sourcing is inadequate for a BLP. This has been AFD and G4 so why was this created without a discussion. Please salt Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep She's been noted as the top pornographic performer outside the United States WP:ENT and is covered by multiple reliable sources. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are GNG worthy sources. They lack content. Haave no author and are basically click bait.

1not an RS. No by line and no content

2 ditto

3 ditto. A page with a photo and two lines of text is nothing that counts towards gng

4 ditto. Still no byline or meaningful text

5 ditto

6 Not an RS. Online site, no evidence of fact checking and being a talking head about how covid affects porn production is not a GNG source. Interviews are not sufficiently independant

7 another interview therefore not useful.Also same online site as before.

8 Brazilian online site. No meaningful content. Not an RS. No byline. Basically clickbait.

So basically, nothing encyclopaedic here that we can use to build a BLP and GNG compliant article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on most accounts. It is 2020 now, and online site can easily be a WP:RS; and last time I checked, there was no requirement to be a NYT to be a WP:RS, so LOTS of other sources do qualify too. Ipsign (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1 Bylines' are at the top (date and time)and bottom (author). The author is Dominik Hok. The site is a news site for Brno region. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2-5 are to be considered in the aggregate that she receives significant coverage by de:Heute (österreichische Zeitung), an Austrian newssite.

6-7 Same with refresher.cz. There is secondary content about before the transcript of the interviews. Among the information it establishes is her real name, her awards, the name of her husband. Plus the fact that independent reliable sources are interested in interviewing her are a sign of notability. See Wikipedia:Interviews#notability. Site is frequently cited in the Czech version of wikipedia [9]

8 is a Brazilian culture (movies, television, music) news site similar toRolling Stone, Variety, Premiere (magazine) Entertainment Weekly if you actually looked at the website overall. It it extensively used as a citation on the Portuguese Wikipedia[10]

So your arguments are more shallow than the sources you criticise. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:GNG, taking into account sources in the article, sources provided by Morbidthoughts, and 1720(!) mentions in news per [11]. Also I have to _strongly_ disagree with nom's statement that "Porn awards no longer confer notability" - IMNSHO, removal of WP:PORNBIO was merely removing any SPECIAL treatment for porn, and they way it looks now, porn actors are to be considered on the same grounds as WP:NACTOR; therefore, it only means that "Porn awards no longer confer any SPECIAL notability compared to other awards"; that is, a porn award has to be considered as ANY OTHER award (and as such, MAY contribute to WP:GNG - on the same basis as any other award in a particular field). Ipsign (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Removal of WP:PORNBIO as a guideline does not mean that all porn actors should be removed. It merely means that now porn actors must conform to the more stringent NACTOR guideline. The subject clearly passes the notability in NACTOR. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A porn actress winning an award from AVN should contribute something toward their subject specific notability. But the sourcing is banal. Trillfendi (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Morbidthoughts, Ipsign and MistyGrace - Sources provided by Ipsign are fine, notability is certainly there, Meets PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The removal of WP:PORNBIO was to integrate with WP:GNG as porn did not require its own category. Previous criteria for pornographic actors and models were superseded by the guidelines for Notable Entertainers since March '19. Notability guidelines are met per WP:GNG. Additional sourcing exists, as noted by Ipsign, and article can be improved. - Contourthis (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Clearly notable as demonstrated by those above. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Compelling sources presented by Morbid to pass [WP:GNG]]Sulfurboy (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.