Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 13

13 June 2009

Planet Rugby

Planet Rugby (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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)

Lily Thai

Lily Thai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

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 CONSENSUS? 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)
    • And where did the voter get the information if it wasn't reliable?SPNic (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Read again, AFD is not a vote because it is consesnsus based. i.e. Consensus it not a vote. Stating the numbers and then stating that means there is no consensus is meaningless. Admin's look to the strength of argument based in policy, guidelines etc. which represent a broader community consensus. The closers statements gives and indication of how they read the debate (non vandalised version). The three deletes are mention the requirement for reliable sourcing and reference to the notability guidelines. The two keeps make bald assertions apparently based on personal opinion rather than policy. As to determining reliable sources, see WP:RS. Also see WP:GNG which states - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.", clearly an interview is not independent of the subject. And no there is no requirement for me to sign in to comment, which since I don't have an account is quite convenient--82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)