Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deena Duos

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deena Duos[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 14:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dekkappai 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to assert [[WP:|notability]], fails the attribution policy and reasons cited by nom. NeoFreak 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes the primary criterion of WP:BIO: "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." (No use even addressing WP:PORNBIO since it is apparently being eliminated-- 4 points of notability have been removed within about a month-- any point she may pass there today may be gone tomorrow). Multiple magazine layouts, multiple magazine covers, multiple video appearances. Clearly an article on a celebrity, not a vanity page. To use "Notability" to delete articles on celebrities, rather than vanity pages, is an abuse of the term. Dekkappai 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Models are not independant of the magazines they appear in. The models work for the magazine. Epbr123 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This argument is absurd. Are actors independent of the films they appear in? They are studio employees. Are you planning a deletion campaign on film next? Why do you refuse to deal constructively with whatever it is that is bothering you? Why are you intentionally disrupting Wikipedia with WP:POINT AfDs? You have made over a dozen of these over the past few day, few of which are justifiable, and no doubt several of them will be deleted because editors do not have time improve each article or even to respond to each AfD before it closes. If you were really concerned about notability and sourcing, you would put a source-tag on the article, as I did with your still insufficiently sourced stub yesterday. Instead you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by wasting editor's time. You don't even put any thought into your responses at these AfDs, you just paste the same nonsense. Dekkappai 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you need to review the Notability guidline. There is nothing in this article that asserts she is any diffrent than the tens of thousands of other porographic performers. Even if it did claim so does this article meet the mandatory policy of attribution? The obvious answer is no. NeoFreak 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you need to look at the article again. Dekkappai 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If you think that mens-mags.com is a reliable source and that the "reliable source" is asserting notability by demonstrating that she has been in a porn mag "X" number of times...well then I don't know what else to say to you. NeoFreak 19:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, the old "Any source on porn is unreliable if it and when mentions porn" argument... IMDB is perfectly fine for thousands of articles, but suddenly invalid if it covers a porn subject. mens-mags.com is not 'reliable' enough to prove a subject has appeared in men's mags. Scans of the model's picture on those men's mags is not 'reliable' evidence that she appeared in those men's mags, because they are men's mags... If that's the kind of reasoning you engage in, feel free to say nothing more to me. And I will return the favor. Dekkappai 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This subject also has an article on Spanish Wikipedia. Deleting a U.S. subject from English Wikipedia while it exists in another language? What's the WP:POINT? Dekkappai 19:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So the existance of one policy violation is justification from additional violations? I would hope the point is that we want to keep this encyclopedia inline with its policies. NeoFreak 19:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. When an article on a minor U.S. celebrity is put up for deletion from the English Wikipedia, while it exists on non-English Wikipedias, the question of whether the English Wikpedia's policies are being abused to keep out certain subjects comes to mind. Dekkappai 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this person is notable. --Nolanuss 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term "Notability" is abused when it is used to delete articles on minor celebrities. It should be used to keep out vanity pages. This subject is clearly a celebrity. Dekkappai 19:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly? Funny, the notability guidline for porn actors says otherwise. If you have a problem with the guildlines and policies of wikipedia then I suggest you take that issue up on their respective pages, not at an AfD discussion. NeoFreak 19:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no problem with Wikipedia policies, I have a problem when they are abused to waste editor's time, and to delete articles on subjects that some editors dislike. WP:PORN has lost half its "notability" criteria within about a month, so I go by WP:BIO which this article clearly passes. The nominator has started stubs which are completely unsourced, yet frets about sourcing in over a dozen AfDs in the past few days. Something is obviously fishy here. Dekkappai 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai. WP:PORNBIO and WP:N are being abused beyond their creators' intentions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have a problem with the guildlines and policies of wikipedia then I suggest you take that issue up on their respective pages, not at an AfD discussion. Epbr123 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While those policies could use some work, this isn't about them-- I'm citing an improper interpretation thereof. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How have I interpreted them improperly? Epbr123 01:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't it rather odd that Epbr123 and NeoFreak have mis-spelled two words in very similar ways during this discussion?

Epbr123: If you have a problem with the guildlines; NeoFreak: "If you have a problem with the guildlines"
Epbr123: "Models are not independant"; NeoFreak: "So the existance"

Just asking. Dekkappai 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you tell it was a copy & paste?? Epbr123 00:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Screw WP:AGF, it's tin foil hat time! NeoFreak 00:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added five published interviews, an article, more magazine pictorials and covers. To clarify the IMDB reference: A listing at IMDB is not being used as proof of notability. Rather, like at hundreds of other film articles on Wikipedia, it is being used as a source. That source gives these published interviews, etc. Again, clearly notable. Dekkappai 18:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews are primary sources and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. An article in a porn magazine is not independent source as the subject of the article is an employee of the magazine. Please read the notability guidelines. Epbr123 18:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as the article is cleaned up. Acalamari 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in her category she is notable model.Kamui99 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has no reliable sources and there is no indication provided that she passes PORNBIO. Epbr123 12:33, 25 March 2007 (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.