|
Johanna Jussinniemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
the same info is on the Swedish Wikipedia and that's enough in there, yet it is not enough for the English one? And Puma is Sweden's best current porn export so I think she deserves a place in Wikipedia.
- This article was deleted over nine months ago. Can you please clarify why this deletion review is only being raised now? Stifle (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. You need to offer us some sources or otherwise demonstrate sufficient notabuility to meet the inclusion criteria. Spartaz Humbug! 18:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Reversing position - see below. Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I can answer that. I was trying to re-create this page last month and it was deleted over and over again. If you go to the Swedish Wikipedia you have basically the same information as on the English one, yet apparently this is not enough to keep the article here. If it's enough there, why cann't it be enough in here? Not to mention just for the fact that Puma Swede is Sweden's best porn export at this time, should be enough to keep her Wikipage active. I could add more info as well. Norum (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- … where "over and over again" translates to "exactly once", according to the log. ☺
And who says it is enough for the Swedish Wikipedia? Perhaps the editors there haven't noticed it yet. (Most of the edits in its history appear to be 'bots and others doing simple maintenance.) Your re-creation didn't address the issue of notability raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Jussinniemi. In fact, it contained less than the prior article did, and the same number of independent reliable source citations : zero. Uncle G (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at this one Cherie, it's got less information, yet that seemed to be enough. It was listed for speedy deletion, but the result was to keep. I think when I tried to recreate the article about Puma, it was deleted twice last month I think. Not like it matters right now. Besides the point, I believe I can actually add more verified info than before. Norum (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- … but you haven't. The deletion log still says only the one deletion occurred. It's linked-to above. You can follow the hyperlink and see for yourself. And no, you didn't create an article at the alternative title. You created a redirect here. Although that does bring up the issue of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puma Swede. So this subject has already been through AFD and deleted twice, it transpires, and you haven't addressed with sources any of the points made in either discussion. Uncle G (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What people created under "Puma Swede" is not really my concern. This was over 1.5 years ago. We are talking about my recreation of "Johanna Jussinniemi" last month. I believe that I can contribute more to her Wikipage, considering it would not be deleted right away. Norum (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Need more? Norum (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think her own site is a pretty reliable source. Norum (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- you obviously didn't read the policy page i linked to. Notability is asserted by the presence of multiple non-trivial secondary sources. That means that something like a newspaper needs to have written about here. Self published sources like webpages do not satisfy the need for secondary sources. I apologise for not being clearer in my original request. Spartaz Humbug! 22:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sustain deletion Seems totally justified on the basis of the material available & the lack of good third party sourcesDGG (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this some kind of a joke? Sustain deletion? Whatever. This thing is still open bud. But then again, Wikipedia is a joke after all, so I'm not surprised this actually happens. And being nominated for AVN 2009 is being notable.
Norum (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Wikipedia does seem to perform like something from Kafka from time to time but the convoluted policies and guidelines function to prevent the project filling up with non-notable dross. Interestingly, you may have hit on something to keep the article. Being nominated for a major adult award is a criteria for notability according to WP:PORNBIO but is is not clear whether being nominated for web starlet of of the year in AVN counts. [1]. The guildline requires the nominee to be a serious contender and I really don't know how to measure that and I'm pretty sure that my wife would disapprove if she caught me doing the research required to answer that. On the basis of the nomination I now vote to Undelete and list at AFD to discuss whether the subject now meets PORNBIO. Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Send to AfD per Spartaz. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete and AFD per Spartaz. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete I think it should be undeleted as well. Being nominated, even if it's for a starlet of the year is some kind of a recognition. I forgot to add earlier, she has also appeared in the The Score magazine as well.Norum (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
