Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faye Reagan (2nd nomination)

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. Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Reagan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and PORNBIO - and interview and some fluffa round appearing in a mainstream ad do not a BLP make. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE again. The assertion of notability needs support from the facts. Lots of award nominations plus low grade fluff do not add up to notability per WP:PORNBIO • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15 nominations to awards, for me, are notable. Common sense over silly regulations, see also Wikipedia:Common sense. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Porn award nominations, especially AVN with 15 nominees per category, are given out prolifically. It is something for everyone. Porn nominations were removed from the notability guideline for just this reason. Common sense is not requirement to treat fluff as a contributing factor for notability. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and 17 of interwiki - on 17 Wikipedias there is an article of Faye Reagan and this is good, but on en.Wikipedia, the article is removed - this is evidence that the new changes in PORNBIO are too radical and idiotically. You don't realize what you're doing. That's going too far. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many awards are given out prolifically, for example: in MTV Movie Awards there are categories of "Best Kiss" or "Best Dance Sequence", so. It is subjective rating, for inclusionists, many award nominations is notable, for deletionists - not. Besides, I appreciate all achievements: number of films, is well known or not, number of nominations to awards, number of interwiki, other; later I am making a choice: keep or delete or do not vote (no opinion). If I think that person is worthy of attention, I vote for keep, simply. Faye Reagan, for me, are notable. There is only one argument for delete - fails new version of PORNBIO, but it is not enough. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD "votes" based on arguments completely contrary to project policy & guidelines are likely to be ignored when the closing admin determines consensus. As long as you are aware of the fact that this, and many other, AfDs are treated as if you never posted here at all, then keep on truckin' I guess. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you wrong. Nothing will be ignored. Please read intro of WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline (red. only guideline, not rules or law). It is a generally accepted standard that editors should (red. not must) attempt (red. only attempt) to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 00:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you wrong. I appreciate all achievements: number of films, is well known or not, number of nominations to awards, number of interwiki, other; these are arguments, later I am making a choice: keep or delete or do not vote (no opinion). If I think that person is worthy of attention, I vote for keep, simply. Faye Reagan, for me, are notable: well known, 3,370,000 results in Google, 254 films, 15 nominations to awards, 17 of interwiki. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, I am just opining that votes that are so off-the-mark and contrary to project guideline & policy alike will likely not be counted at all. AfDs are not votes, you know, right? Tarc (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read intro of WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline (red. only guideline, not rules or law). It is a generally accepted standard that editors should (red. not must) attempt (red. only attempt) to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 00:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO guideline states in the second paragraph, the guideline reflects the consensus of editors. Occasional exceptions need good reasons. Criteria long rejected by the community like Google hits and number of films do not constitute good reasons to buck the working consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Google hits and number of films not a direct reason for leaving, but these are arguments. If person has a (for example) million hits, this shows that it is popular. Large number of films (for example 200) shows that it is not a person with half a year experience and is worth attention. These only arguments, two of several. The rest of the argument is over. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 10:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If person has a (for example) million hits, this shows that it is popular..., yes but being popular is not the same as bein notable for this project. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As lovely as she is unfortunately looks can't count towards notability, Sadly and regrettably fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet the more stringent WP:PORNBIO. The general notability guide is of course beyond reach here, as no reliable sources cover the subject. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: the vapid "vote" above should be discarded per WP:ITSNOTABLE. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, please stop trolling, someone may have a different view/opinion than you, please respect other users' votes. If the voice is not clear to you, please ask the user to expand. Hillary Scott`love, I presented the arguments above, whether you agree with them? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry If I'm a bit dense here but how is Tarc trolling ? ..... It's a known fact you can't just put "It's notable" and if you do it'll be disregarded here, In reality both of your !votes mean jack shit here and is doing nothing but wasting both your times!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the voice by other user is not clear to you, please ask the user to expand, without text of "Closing admin". Someone may have a different view/opinion than you, the opposition has no right to judge votes by other users. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hillary Scott`love:, I presented the arguments above, whether you agree with them or you have other arguments? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we shouldn't have to ask users to expand ... They should read WP:AFD and all that before !voting/participating here, And with the greatest of respect you've been asked countless times to expand and you still never do, If someone makes a WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote they deserve telling and disregarding. –Davey2010^Talk 23:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have faith that the admins closing these discussion are more than competent enough to judge the merits of every editor's weigh-in here, but it doesn't hurt to call attention to the ones that are most egregiously contrary to project norms, such as this one. Tarc (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read intro of WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline (red. only guideline, not rules or law). It is a generally accepted standard that editors should (red. not must) attempt (red. only attempt) to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 00:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Common sense" should tell you that claiming that the "occasional exception" holds in virtually every disputed case, and being resoundingly rejected the great majority of the time, serves only to convince uninvolved editors that your opinion is not to be taken seriously. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Category:Kenyan cricketers (and other similar categories), and hundreds of articles this type - Emmanuel Bundi (stub, not known person in the world, 1000 hits in Google, 0 interwiki, cricketer - he is in Wikipedia because has played in one One Day International match. And Faye Reagan: well known (media person), 3,370,000 results in Google, 254 films, 15 nominations to awards, 17 of interwiki (on 17 Wikipedias there is an article of Faye Reagan)...and you blindly look only at (underdeveloped and no reasonable) pornobio. I proved and showed the ~~folly~~ of the year, congratulations. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 10:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're falling back on WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments now? Tarc (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. I not vote because other articles.... I proved and showed your the a complete lack of common sense, nothing more. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're pointing out other subjects, e.g. Kenyan cricketers, and using the existence of those articles to justify the retention of this one. That is the the epitome of an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the perfectly sound analysis presented by the nominator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing PORNBIO, GNG, and WP:NMODEL and per my comments above. Lots of low quality citations without reliable source coverage don't add up to notability. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm glad when policy overcomes fandom. Disregarding sexist comments above, she clearly fails PORNBIO and GNG. No extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources is available; none. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:52, 14 August 2015 (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.