Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andi Land

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Land[edit]

Andi Land (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)

I see a great deal of content about Andi here, and do find there's web content on her, including social media, of course. Yet I cannot find a single reliable source indicating she meets WP:BASIC. Have I missed something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of this article is as much as those of Raven Riley's, Ariel Rebel's and Trisha Uptown's, all similar to Andi Land. Andi Land was the first (and only girl) to leave the industry, then come back with her own program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grabags (talk • contribs) 08:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I do see that WP:PORNBIO does offer the additional criteria "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times." In that case, it becomes a question of whether her awards and noms are well-known and signficant. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe she does meet this criterion, as her main award, "Miss Freeones", does not appear to be a major one. But YMMV. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep? Ability to meet wp:notability looks likely, possibly has already done that. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She seems to fail the the general notability guidelines without sufficient reliable source coverage. It seems like her article is original research or relies mostly on her website. She fails PORNBIO with her nominations not being significant enough to satisfy criteria 1. The XBIZ nomination may be arguably be significant but not the freeones or shorty. Criteria 3 is not satisfied without showing some independent evidence of that she was featured on the shows. The website for webdreams does not show her as one the stars while I could not find andi among the G4TV archives. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the G4TV link that Andi Land was featured in (http://www.g4tv.com/videos/43533/top-3-women-of-montreal-1-ariel-rebel/) and the webdreams clip from season 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuTeOfWuhgA). The Freeones contest is extremely prestigious, the only award that includes money, some $13k this year to the winner, it's the one most would like to win, and has huge sponsors from the trade, Brazzers, Naughty America, Bluebird Films etc. I'm now being asked to include inline citations, but the article is probably being deleted, this is ridiculous. I have no connection to this person, it was going to be a series of several alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grabags (talk • contribs) 16:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right now, nothing's been decided, so simply continue to state your case. And if information is "deliberately misleading," by all means, correct it. As for the COI issue raised by Morbidthoughts, I have no take on this whatsoever. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the conflict of interest issue, you claimed to be the copyright owner of those images in her article. Several look to be personal in nature. So you don't actually know Andi or those images are not actually yours? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some articles available I've seen, but it then shares information that shouldn't be shared, can't be shared, so I can't include those. Signed Grabags — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grabags (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have to say, I'm confused by how you're able to access articles with "information that shouldn't be shared"? Where are you finding these articles, and what are they, exactly? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, I am not going to include links where it mentions proper names It's not meant to be a guide for stalkers, it's more like a witch hunt. --Grabags (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't seem that you understand what we mean when we say we need reliable sources to verify her notability. We are not looking for more personal data on her but rather, news coverage that suggests she's notable, period. I suggest you read reliable sources. Oh, and speaking of stalkers, you still haven't provided a credible explanation of how you have can personal photos of her going back years, and yet have no association with her, as you have stated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I speedied this, nothing above make me see it in a different light, nn-pornbio Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I haven't been able to find any new information to satisfy the citations you require, all those links that might have helped I found were dead, the websites are no longer active, or they are on sites like Tumblr where you can't link, or Squidoo that is banned. I too suggest the page is deleted and I will try again when I have found more information that is likely to allow the page to stand.--Grabags (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, no: it was my cheeky way of suggesting that you are not being straightforward about the conflict of interest issue. That, I believe, is a real problem here: you seem to have personal photos of her at various points in her professional life going back to her very first test shoot back in 2004. You've since removed that image from the article, perhaps because you realize it utterly undermines your claim of having no connection to the subject. Grabag's pledge to recreate this article a 3rd time if deleted is another reason to let this AfD run its course, so it can be speedied as a repost if it is deleted now and recreated later with more of the same "information," as opposed to reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a pledge to revisit this attempt, if Wikipedia does not want to share this type of information, or feel it worthy, then I am not going to spend seven hours searching the web for one excerpt of a show to prove it exists, just because someone here disbelieves that information. I will not bother again if I can't find what has to be found to satisfy the criteria set here, and have the time to serve affidavits. The images were given to me, to use as I wish, free from copyright. I deleted those you highlighted, to appease only you. I have never set eyes on or spoken to her, we are from different countries and continents. There would be no gain to me, or anyone, if this was to have remained on Wikipedia, I have no connection to the industry whatsoever or her, just something I wanted to contribute. Many forums on the internet shares personal information should anyone wants to spend weeks trawling through, to try and piece together an article. --Grabags (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things: 1) if you are not in fact the author of those images on Wiki Commons, as you state there, then I think you'll need a waiver in order to use the Creative Commons free use license. But I'm not an expert on these matters and this is not a matter for this project. 2) please explain what you mean by "...and have the time to serve affidavits." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are now removed. I will need to submit to you a written affidavit to prove there is no connection or affiliation.--Grabags (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Morbidthoughts. Land fails GNG without reliable source coverage. Fails PORNBIO with only minor award nominations. Lacks evidence of being featured in mainstream media. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2012 (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.

.

Andi Land's date of birth is sometimes listed as 11th April 1988 which means her photos etc dating to early 2005 were done when she was 16. Does this mean she was under-age at the time ?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andi_Land&oldid=1070564165"