Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Sheridan

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. –MuZemike 03:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Sheridan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, notwithstanding paltry awards, similarity of name to Nicolette Sheridan, and porn appearances with her husband. See WP:INHERIT. The "article" is a single unsourced sentence, followed by a resume, sourced just about entirely to unreliable sources. Wikipedia is not a resume-hosting service. WP:NOT David in DC (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. There's simply no there, there. The few awards don't confer notability, per WP:GNG. ~~Please do not use the Porn WikiProject's now-deprecated Pornbio criteria. Even if not deprecated, they~~ The criteria in WP:PORNBIO are not a way of evading WP:GNG. ~~If they were still in force, they would be the~~ They are the start of the conversation, not the dispositive end of it. If a BLP meets WP:PORNBIO but fails WP:GNG, WP:GNG controls. The stage name seems calculated to play off of the name Nicolette Sheridan but that's hardly notable, and no source is cited to suggest it is. Appearing in porn with a husband who has a colorful stage name is not notable either, per WP:INHERIT. David in DC (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When was WP:PORNBIO (note working wikilink to criteria) deprecated? Can you provide a link to where that was discussed and/or enacted? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct, it was not deprecated. I was wrong, having taken for accurate assertions in the third AfD for Gabriella Fox and in the second for Rachel Starr. I apologize. I've amended my entry accordingly. David in DC (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gabriella Fox is exactly why WP:PORNBIO should exist. It sets the minimum requirement for someone who otherwise lacks the media or scholarly coverage needed to meet the general notability guideline. Having looked over some of the sources offered in that AfD, and despite the closure, there is clearly not enough mainstream significant coverage of Fox to meet GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Jarkeld (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PORNBIO, especially since she's won two AVN Awards in different years. If PORNBIO is deprecated, why is it still listed at WP:BIO? CityO fSilver 21:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, it is not deprecated. please see my explanation, and amended "delete" rationale above. I apologize. David in DC (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She passes PORNBIO with her two AVN awards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO. And to the nominator: the GNG does not trump other guidelines. As Delicious carbuncle explains, the GNG is set in place to assist editors in determining notability when SIGCOV is present. The SNGs are set in place to assist in determing notability when SIGCOV is not present... just so long as assertions are verifiable. As both being part of WP:N, the are set to work in concert, and not in disharmony. Missing in GNG does not automatically equate to non-notable. Missing an SNG does automatically equate to non-notable. And if or when PORNBIO is actually deprecated, we will still look to WP:ANYBIO and then have new arguments about the notability (or not) of her various genre awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:PORNBIO or per WP:ANYBIO (criteria#1). AVN Awards are not "paltry" awards, are undoubtedly the most known and most relevant awards in adult industry. And the argument about unreliable sources is a typical argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Finally, this is not a case of WP:INHERIT, her stage name is similar to Nicolette Sheridan, Ok, but who cares? This is not the first nor the last case of a stage name chosen to remind, honor or exploit someone else's fame and Wikipedia wasn't created to judge stage names. --Cavarrone (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Our readings of the interplay between WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG differ. In this case, I believe WP:GNG trumps WP:PORNBIO. My WP:INHERIT citation is about her husband, not Nicolette. I did not intend to say AVN awards are paltry, but rather that these two, one of them a group award, are paltry. The hard-and-fast (yikes, pun NOT intended) 2 awards rule suggested by PORNBIO is one of its great weaknesses. And in biographies of living people, per WP:BLP, strong, multiple, reliable sources are imperitive. IMDB, IAFD and Sheridan's own web page are not WP:Reliable sources, so we're left only with AVN, and that's only good for the awards. So we're down to the awards. They're not enough to meet WP:GNG even if they satisfy WP:PORNBIO. This biography of a living person should be deleted or userfied, without prejudice to it's being recreated in Mainspace if it can be sourced to the standards of WP:BLP. David in DC (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The GNG does not "trump" the SNGs. The SNGs do not "trump" the GNG. GNG is set for instances when SIGCOV is available. The SNGs are set for instances when SIGCOv is lacking. As both are parts of WP:N, they are intended to work together, and not to be set at odds. The standards of BLP require verifiability of assertions, not significant coverage of assertions. They are two different concepts, although related. Verifiability does not itself have to be SIGCOV... if found in RS suitable for the topic being discussed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. David in DC (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has won two awards which are significant in her field. Passes WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 20:54, 10 November 2011 (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.