Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by St170e (talk | contribs) at 00:57, 12 December 2016 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Starr (2nd nomination)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge server cache

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 | Talk 00:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Starr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP lacking in reliable secondary sources that that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Article sourced to non-independent industry materials or tabloids. Recently added Polska Times content appears to be citing to tabloid-like content as well. The best I could find was TMZ and Wikipedia does not generally cite to tabloids. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO as only two nominations are listed.

The notability tag has been contested and it may be best to resolve the issue via AfD. The first AfD in 2015 closed as no consensus, so this would be a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should not be considered as a 'porn-only' notoriety in my humble opinion. Decent international notoriety as porn actress albeit without awards won; notable for having been a Penthouse Pet in diptych with her sister as well as for her being a Polish celebrity. Creating a page or redirect for her sister could therefore be useful. Nota: the 'listed nominations' mentioned above were oddly removed from the page before the debate was launched (see the article talk page).--DPD (t) 01:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Weak). Weak because of the dearth of independent sources. But she has twice been nominated for the "Best New Starlet," a criteria for notability (WP:ANYBIO). Less important, IMDb has a page on her. Caballero/Historiador 05:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Caballero1967: Two XBIZ nominations is nowhere near meeting WP:PORNBIO. Award nominations have been dropped from this SNG a long time ago. Besides, XBIZ is not the Nobel Prize :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Could you explain the SNG drop and why you think the award is not worth considering? We should discard all awards if the standard is the Nobel Prize. I am all ears. :) Caballero/Historiador 22:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest reviewing Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2014#RfC:_As_regards_WP:PORNBIO.2C_should_the_criteria_for_awards_nominations_be_removed_from_the_guideline.3F and the discussion immediately beneath that RFC. One important reason was the increasingly outlandish proliferation of award categories and nominations within most categories. One incarnation of AVN's fan awards had categories with up to 100 nominees, and most categories from the more prominent awardgivers have more than a dozen nominees. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Uh, Polish celebrity - hardly. In addition to the English language article in a minor Polish-American newspaper, I checked Polish language coverage. All I see is an article in regional (provincial) newspaper (Kurier Lubelski (pl:Kurier Lubelski) [1]), a single paragraph at a news section of a bigger portal onet.pl, and a bunch of articles in tabloid Super Express. Borderline at best, and frankly, given that majority of coverage comes from tabloids, trade journals and a single local newspaper, well, I think we usually lean towards delete with no other arguments, and as the remaining question should be whether she fails PORNBIO - and nobody disputed the nominator's claim she is not.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No genuine international notoriety or celebrity. Such claims are based on unreliable tabloidery, including one source whose extensively referenced native-language Wikipedia article [2] points out its reputation for "misconduct and disregard for the rules of journalistic ethics" and "the administration of untruth and creat[ion of] fictional material". What's happened here is fairly straightforward: a flurry of posts on social media claimed (without any credible evidence) that the winner of a quite minor beauty pageant ("Miss Polonia Manhattan") had become a porn performer. ([3] seems to be the starting point, apparently based only on visual resemblances in a few photos. Sources which base their reporting on social media aren't reliable, and can't support a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable pornographic performer. Our guidelines clearly say we should not create articles built on tabloid coverage, which this article would be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete we rightly expect better coverage from blps. Spartaz Humbug! 22:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 00:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't rely on an outside wiki article to determine reputation as there is potential for coatracking, and I can't track the underlying sourcing (if there is any and whether it's from competition or an actual academic journal). Even the best of newspapers, most notably the New York Times, have had journalistic failings. I see these populist foreign papers that are in tabloid formats to be the equivalent of something like the New York Post which has never been outright rejected as a source for wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2016 (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.
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 redirect to Grong Sparebank. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 14:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verran Sparebank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources found for this defunct bank to pass WP:COMPANY. The article has also been unsourced for 10 years. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 00:57, 12 December 2016 (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.
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. MBisanz talk 03:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Afuni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced and I'm failing to find reliable online sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:07, 19 December 2016 (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.
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. joe deckertalk 21:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Asif Shahid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Salt given the 3 deletions now and it's clear in the sheer blatancy of it existing again within 4 months again; if this should ever come in mainspace again, it will be at AfC, not by a starting user themselves. WP:NOT applies because it's clear this is not going to be anything else but advertising. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article Dr Asif Shahid should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (Dr Asif Shahid is a notable journalist from Pakistan)[1][2][3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

References

  1. ^ Dr Asif Shahid (15 April 2009). "Taliban, ISI and future of Pakistan (in Urdu:طالبان، آئی ایس آئی اور پاکستان کا مستقبل)". sachiidosti.com. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
  2. ^ "Pakistani Newspapers". Online Newspapers. onlinenewspapers.com. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
  3. ^ "92 News HD". 92newshd.tv. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
  4. ^ "Dr Asif Shahid". Pakistani Journalists. pakistanijournalists.blogspot.com. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
  5. ^ "Daily Nai Baat Lahore". naibaat.com.pk. Chaudhry Abdul Rehman. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
  6. ^ "Daily Khabrain Lahore". Zia Shahid. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
  7. ^ Dr Asif Shahid. "Taliban Or Pakistan Ka Mustaqbil". sachiidosti.com. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
--Muhammad Farooq (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of removing the link to "revolvy.com" in your list above. That site is a mirror of wikipedia; he is included in that folder based on his inclusion in the category here. This undermines your position that he is independently notable, so I presume you don't mind the removal. Kuru (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2016 (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.
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. MBisanz talk 03:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruiser (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can find only one source on ITunes, and it does not list any hits, top concerts, etc. Does not meet notability requirement for Media and Music. Rogermx (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:07, 19 December 2016 (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.
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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devinda Subasinghe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. All the references are deadlinks- there is no evidence to support notability. Dan arndt (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2016 (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.
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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayathri Ranjani Samarakone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. High Commissioners are not inherently notable. Unable to find any indepth coverage about any of her roles.Dan arndt (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 00:34, 20 December 2016 (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.