Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 13: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dottydotdot (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Deletion was completely unreasonable. Deletion should only be by concensus, but there were two votes to keep and two to delete. Furthermore [[WP:PORNBIO]] says that a porn star is notable if they have been nominated for a major award. One of the people voting delete said she was nominated for an AVN award for Best New Starlet, which is a fairly major award. However he voted delete because she wasn't nominated in multiple years! Was this a recent change because I don't remember it, and in any case it sounds stupid; would you say that someone who was nominated for a Best New Artist Grammy isn't notable because they weren't nominated more than once? This needs to be undone and the deletor needs to be trout slapped![[User:SPNic|SPNic]] ([[User talk:SPNic|talk]]) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
Deletion was completely unreasonable. Deletion should only be by concensus, but there were two votes to keep and two to delete. Furthermore [[WP:PORNBIO]] says that a porn star is notable if they have been nominated for a major award. One of the people voting delete said she was nominated for an AVN award for Best New Starlet, which is a fairly major award. However he voted delete because she wasn't nominated in multiple years! Was this a recent change because I don't remember it, and in any case it sounds stupid; would you say that someone who was nominated for a Best New Artist Grammy isn't notable because they weren't nominated more than once? This needs to be undone and the deletor needs to be trout slapped![[User:SPNic|SPNic]] ([[User talk:SPNic|talk]]) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
* AfD is not a vote. The content of PORNBIO are what they are, the fact you think them stupid isn't that important for this purpose, they are a consensus view. If you think they need changing then the talk page there is the place to raise that issue. Irrespective they are secondary criteria and the expectation still exists they will be covered in multiple [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] independant of the subject. This article had one source an interview with the individual in question, at best it fails the independance requirement. The nomination for the award was not cited to any reliable source. --[[Special:Contributions/82.7.40.7|82.7.40.7]] ([[User talk:82.7.40.7|talk]]) 07:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
* AfD is not a vote. The content of PORNBIO are what they are, the fact you think them stupid isn't that important for this purpose, they are a consensus view. If you think they need changing then the talk page there is the place to raise that issue. Irrespective they are secondary criteria and the expectation still exists they will be covered in multiple [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] independant of the subject. This article had one source an interview with the individual in question, at best it fails the independance requirement. The nomination for the award was not cited to any reliable source. --[[Special:Contributions/82.7.40.7|82.7.40.7]] ([[User talk:82.7.40.7|talk]]) 07:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
**Did you actually look at the final count? THERE WAS NOT A CONCENSUS? The final count was two to keep, three to delete! How is that a consensus? And shouldn't you log in before you comment?[[User:SPNic|SPNic]] ([[User talk:SPNic|talk]]) 08:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 08:16, 13 June 2009
This is protected from being recreated for some reason from a long time ago for spam being posted there. Dotty••|☎ 08:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Deletion was completely unreasonable. Deletion should only be by concensus, but there were two votes to keep and two to delete. Furthermore WP:PORNBIO says that a porn star is notable if they have been nominated for a major award. One of the people voting delete said she was nominated for an AVN award for Best New Starlet, which is a fairly major award. However he voted delete because she wasn't nominated in multiple years! Was this a recent change because I don't remember it, and in any case it sounds stupid; would you say that someone who was nominated for a Best New Artist Grammy isn't notable because they weren't nominated more than once? This needs to be undone and the deletor needs to be trout slapped!SPNic (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- AfD is not a vote. The content of PORNBIO are what they are, the fact you think them stupid isn't that important for this purpose, they are a consensus view. If you think they need changing then the talk page there is the place to raise that issue. Irrespective they are secondary criteria and the expectation still exists they will be covered in multiple reliable sources independant of the subject. This article had one source an interview with the individual in question, at best it fails the independance requirement. The nomination for the award was not cited to any reliable source. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Did you actually look at the final count? THERE WAS NOT A CONCENSUS? The final count was two to keep, three to delete! How is that a consensus? And shouldn't you log in before you comment?SPNic (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)