Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josephine James

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 withdraw. Looking at the discussion, I realise I should probably have listed these separately, so I'll withdraw the debate and let someone do this. Egdirf (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine James

A very short article about a porn star. There is very little other information available apart from the links given, and these are sketchy. I don't personally have an opinion on this, but feel a discussion on the matter is appropriate. Egdirf (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Keep Samantha Sterlyng per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Sterlyng. Delete the rest. Keep Elen Cole per coverage here. Delete the rest. Epbr123 (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Samantha Sterlyng went to AfD six weeks ago (discussion - no consensus but additional material found). A bulk nomination of porn stars is questionable. They should be checked individually. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. These are articles about substantially different people who only have a profession (porn actress) in common and as Gene93k says, should be done separately. To translate this into a mainstream perspective, imagine putting Gloria Stuart, Renee Zellweger and Laura Vandervoort in the same AFD because they're all actresses. Tabercil (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better if he had done them separately, but that is not a good reason to keep them all. Epbr123 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel that a violating the deletion guideline isn't sufficient reason for opposition? If deleted, improperly listing this as a multi-article AfD is a legitimate reason for opening a deletion review on procedural grounds. Since the review would most likely result in overturning deletion, it seems like a good reason to me. Horrorshowj (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be best if this was withdrawn and individual AfDs started. However, I don't agree with voting to keep articles based on procedural reasons. If this AfD is closed as keep all, it will make it difficult to renominate these articles again individually in the near future without the outcome being swayed by this AfD. If the nomination isn't withdrawn, I am confident that the closer will be able to wade through the mess to decide which articles should be deleted; but this will be harder if procedural votes are thrown in. Epbr123 (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Samantha Sterlyng per Epbr123, but delete the rest who are almost certainly non-notable. I agree that these nominations should have been carried out seperately. For example Josephine James has been featured on BustyBritain.com (I think) among a large number of other non-notable similar actresses. Which is not to say that a particular porn site cannot feature a mixture of notable and non-notable actresses, because Busty.pl features the notable Ewa Sonnet who has a music career and is something of a celebrity in Poland, maybe even their equivalent of Lucy Pinder, but it also features the non-notable Aneta Buena, Bea Flora, Wanessa Lilio, etcetera. Although Maria Swan has also appeared on busty.pl, but let's not get too off-topic.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These two links seem to suggest that Elen Cole is Rhianydd Jones, a Miss UK finalist. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-76570078.html http://www.highbeam.com/Search.aspx?q=%22elen+cole%22+publication%3a%5b%22The+Mirror+(London+England)%22%5d Vinh1313 (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all All are notable. Rhianydd Jones was a host on Supermarket Sweep, so if she is Elen Cole, that makes her notable enough for a keep. Elen Cole and Josephine James (Jo Hadfield) are listed on IMDB. Stephanie Bews was one of the leading British models of her genre during her career. And as for Samantha Sterlyng, we've been here before. Were these articles just nominated for deletion simply because someone wanted to take the moral high ground? Citybest (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being on IMDB is certainly not an indicator of notability. There's wide consensus for this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this nomination may have been inspired by a comment on another discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha Collins. The nominator has also started an AFD for other articles mentioned in the same comment. --Popplewick (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw the discussion, which is why I wondered. Whatever happened to the idea of freedom of speech? It's not like the articles are pornographic in themselves, they are merely about actresses who star in porn films Citybest (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anyone remember Rhianydd Jones's role on Supermarket Sweep? No? Well I do. She was one of several women who assisted in 'the Big Sweep', basically a timed trolley dash where the contestants also had to build up tins, etc, to score points. It was her job to oversee that this task was done properly. And, together with another girl - whose name I think was Rezi if my memory serves me correctly - she read out the viewers' question, the two taking it in turns for this 'important' task on alternate shows. You know the one, Guess The Item. "Here's the item with some of the letters missing. If you think you know what it is. . ." Hardly notable, is she? Doesn't even warrant an entry on the IMDB's Supermarket Sweep page. So delete her. In fact, delete the lot. None of them are really that notable. 81.151.20.96 (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC){{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]
Keep Multi-article AfD's have to concern subjects with a substantial common connection. The mere fact that they are 4 of the several thousand active or retired porn actresses is an incredibly weak connection and insufficient for a group nomination. I reserve comment on how I'd vote if they were listed separately. Horrorshowj (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of whether they have been listed together, they don't cut the mustard - that is, they are not notable enough to be deserving of their own articles. Or are we in the process of dumbing down this great encyclopedna? 217.43.197.163 (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC){{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]
Delete All as non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Samantha Sterlyng, I expanded that article a bit. No opinion on the others, but I agree with the other people saying nominating these 4 unrelated articles at once was a bad idea. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated these four articles together because all are very short, and a google search suggested to me that many of them were not particularly significant. In hindsight, I may have nominated the Samantha Sterlyng article separately because of the previous debate on the subject (which failed to reach a consensus), but not the others. There is very little information about them on the web, and they are unlikely to ever be expanded beyond their current length. Egdirf (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We know you acted in good faith when you batched the nominations, so I hope you don't take the criticism personally. It is best to nominate articles seperately, unless they're very similar. Just one source can be enough to save an article from deletion, so it's hard to be totally sure an article should be deleted after quick Google search. Epbr123 (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't worry. I haven't taken it personally. Thanks for the advice, by the way. I'll keep it in mind for future reference. Egdirf (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2008 (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.