Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsa Jean (2nd nomination)

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. Strength of arguments on specific policy carry the day here. No strong evidence of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Jean[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Elsa Jean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was deleted through AfD in January 2020. However, five sources have been added that were published since that time. Note, Elsa Jean is a former pornographic actress, so follow due diligence regarding NSFW subjects. Sources added since last AfD: 1) Twitter, 2) JoyNights, 3) Die-Screaming, 4) AVN, and 5) XBIZ. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, Ohio, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just chiming in because I declined the G4 CSD tag. This version is significantly different to the one that was deleted at AfD back then. There may be 5 sources in the current iteration that have been published since the article was deleted, but the references used in this version of the article are very different, they were mostly profile pages on various sites, a couple of interviews, and an IMDB page. It also did not contain anywhere close to this level of detail and the award section only had 5 entries compared to the much larger table it has now.
I mention this because I don't think the old discussion has any bearing on this one. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Yahoo Finance has an article with a by-line [1] about NFTs she "sold" (I guess is the verb to use?), and LADbible (which also has a by-line and doesn't seem that tabloid-ey) [2]. With the Fortune source (#9 in the article) and the rest, I think we're just barely notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Yahoo Finance appears to be a reprint from Business Insider (or vice-versa), so I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous discussions of LADbible question its editorial oversight (factual reliability). As for the Business Insider article via Yahoo!, not only is is a primary source, it expresses the subject's perspective in the first person. WP:RSPS notes Insider not always marking syndicated content clearly. This instance reeks of crypto self promotion. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The new content may clear the G4 and A7 concerns of previous iterations of the article, but the low quality of the sources still cause it to fall short on notability. The new facts since the previous AfD deletion are additional porn awards/nominations and the line of NFTs. Secondary source coverage provided by the article and found in WP:BEFORE searching consists of self-published porn blogs, the usual award rosters, crypto blogs and garbage-tier tabloids. Still fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is written in 15 languages, I think it should remain. LionelCristiano (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Other stuff existing does not overcome a lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable secondary sources. Besides, many of the other versions are translations of the previously deleted version of the en.Wikipedia page. Other Wikipedia editions have their own guidelines for inclusion independent of the English Wikipedia. Existence there does not establish notability here. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:ENT The awards and filmography are not sourced. Those 15 languages mentioned above look like they were recently added there, perhaps by the same editor who added it at English Wikipedia. WP:RSP Some checking needs to be done on the sourcing. You Tube and Twitter are not considered a reliable sources. Each one of those non-Engllish Wikipedia listings has this same image of the subject, which was only added to Commons on 30 May 2023. Perhaps we just have an enthusiastic editor at work there. — Maile (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually looking at random ones, that is not actually the case.
    I'm not even going to look at the other 12. No offense, but I think your hypothesis is not even close to correct. --GRuban (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She has the cover and focus article of major fashion magazines in multiple continents, Glamour Magazine Bulgaria[3], Harper's Bazaar Vietnam[4], this year, 2023. That meets WP:GNG. --GRuban (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it should stay. LionelCristiano (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC) Duplicate !vote struck. BD2412 T 15:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but you already said that above. If you want, you can expand on your earlier opinion, as to why you think the article should stay, give additional reasons for her Wikipedia:Notability, but it's one bolded opinion per participant. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LionelCristiano: Please do not vote twice in the same discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    my fault. LionelCristiano (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, in any case. BD2412 T 15:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notwithstanding that this article exists in other language Wikipedias, this fails to meet general notability guidelines. The porn-related stuff is typical promotional material. The article has already been deleted once at AFD for not passing WP:PORNBIO. The post-porn stuff is nowhere near enough, but if her modelling career continues she may one day merit an article. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While she is covered mostly in adult interviews and such, she meets WP:ANYBIO by being nominated and winning several awards in her field. Just because they are porn awards does not make them any less important from a notability viewpoint. Also, being on the cover of noteworthy (non tabloid style) magazines, regardless of country, in my eyes confirms notability. Regarding YouTube and Twitter being unreliable sources, true to an extent but where it is a subject saying a non controversial fact about themselves, it would fall in with being a primary source which is allowed within reason. Another secondary reference to add to the list focusing on NFTs. Awshort (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Porn actors' notability is evaluated through WP:ENTERTAINER and since PORNBIO was deprecated, I don't think porn awards matter any longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Er... Liz, are you performing an administrative function or are you giving an opinion? In any case, please note that WP:ANYBIO does not, actually, say "this does not apply to pornographic actors". --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban I can't speak for Liz, but this discussion may be worth reading. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Counterfeit Purses, thank you for linking the above. I had never seen that, and it's enlightening in some ways. I don't normally edit in areas where this subject matter would arise. — Maile (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban, the relisting was an administrative function, the comment about porn awards was just an observation that occurred to me reading over the comments. Porn awards use to matter for notability purposes but don't any longer, as far as I know. As for whether or not this article is Kept or Deleted, I have no opinion. If I did, I would have made a "vote". Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to have enough coverage to meet general notability requirements, and is a decent job quality article. Cannot see the justification in removing it from the project.EchetusXe 00:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to close this as "No consensus", but will instead opt to !Vote to move to draft per WP:ATD, to provide an opportunity for development of more general sources. BD2412 T 14:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – subject has won multiple notable awards, satisfying WP:ANYBIO. – bradv 15:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even if WP does not recognize pornographic awards anymore when it comes to establish notability of pornographic entertainers (as contradictory as this may sound), Sapphire Howell has received coverage in mainstream media, presented in the page and by GRuban, above, for example, so that she does seem notable enough, "despite" being a porn star....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mushy Yank,
Who is Sapphire Howell and what does she have to do with this article? I don't see this person mentioned in this article so I'm not sure what connection they have to a Keep vote. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz,
Thank you for your concern.
They're the same person. and that's the name she uses in her new careeer (supposedly her real name) and that recent sources use. It was strangely removed from the intro, although sources on the page use it. The Harper's Bazaar cover and article use it, for example. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see an ANYBIO pass here, and I'm surprised that several of my colleagues above do. ANYBIO does not say anything about a notable award; it mentions a "well-known and significant award or honor". I'm willing to accept that an AVN award in principle qualifies for this; but if you look at AVN Awards, there are 56 individual awards handed out every year, and the ones Jean won don't appear to be among the most significant. I struggle to believe that the "AVN Award for Best New Starlet" is so significant that it can confer notability in the absence of GNG. The same applies to the other awards listed. Looking at the substance of the page, it's obvious that we're also struggling to write even a short biography; there are perhaps four sentences that are not prosified database entries. I suspect this is a TOOSOON situation; Jean appears to be only increasing in profile. But we don't have the sources to write a reasonable article, and the awards are not enough for me to support a stub via ANYBIO. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elsa_Jean_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1192540794"