Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittney Skye (3rd 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. Assertions of notability are, I'm afraid, just assertions (esp. "keep per editor x", if no evidence is presented by editor x). Drmies (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brittney Skye[edit]

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

The subject fails PORNBIO due to lack of significant awards or contribution to the genre. There's some coverage after she "ducked under a boundary rope and ran onto the putting green during the final round of the U.S. Open golf tournament..." but that's BIO1E and can be discounted. 1st AfD closed as No consensus, and 2nd as Keep, because it was too soon after the 1st one. 18 months later, this can be revisited. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable performer in pornography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 05:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming my Keep !vote on the first AFD was HOTTIE related ? ....I really have no idea but anyway delete. –Davey2010^Talk 05:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: sorry dude, please read article! Clearly, meets of Wikipedia:GNG. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - - If it did none of us would be here now. –Davey2010^Talk 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Brittney Skye meets of the Wikipedia:GNG, it is the fact. By the way, nobody writes about fails GNG here, only you. Stop trolling. Subtropical-man talk
        (en-2) 22:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because IMHO I believe she does fail GNG, If I'm wrong I'm wrong, "Stop trolling." - Is that really the best you've got ? .... Grow up. –Davey2010^Talk 23:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill past porn performer who lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. She once got a brief burst of attention for a publicity stunt promoting a casino, but that is WP:BLP1E at best. Since her website is defunct, it seems unlikely that notability will emerge now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence that anything has changed since the first AfD. 450 film credits should allow no room to deny that this topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over time (nutshell WP:N), and has created an enduring record in doing so. Unscintillating (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known, won of notable award (ok - scene), achievements beyond pornography, meets of Wikipedia:GNG. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- could you help clarify which sources establish GNG? The only source that is non-primary, non-porn industry that I see is NYT but it mentions the movie that Ms Skye was in, not herself. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he just read through the first AfD and was convinced by a statement like "She has also received at least some mainstream media coverage in at least ESPN.com, The Daily Telegraph, the book Sport and Violence: A Critical Examination of Sport, Maxim UK, Playboy, Penthouse, and the Howard Stern Show." --SamWinchester000 (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award win. Fails GNG with RS coverage only based on a publicity stunt. Mainstream work is only referenced by cast listings, well short of PORNBIO criterion #3. • Gene93k (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k's excellent analysis. A small string of unbilled and undiscussed roles in little-remarked-on movies falls far short of both SNG and GNG requirements, and the advertising/publicity stunt generated only the thinnest of insignificant coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Took part in the Top Selling Title of the Year 2002, had a very interesting scandal, wasn't listed in a 2010 Pornstar Top 12 Ranking by a popular (not porn, but independent!) magazine because of her "unimportance" and had quite a few appearances in different media. Also, I'll trust User:Guy1890, quote him saying in the first AfD "She has also received at least some mainstream media coverage in at least ESPN.com, The Daily Telegraph, the book Sport and Violence: A Critical Examination of Sport, Maxim UK, Playboy, Penthouse, and the Howard Stern Show." and therefore consider that she passes GNG. I guess the article just needs to be improved a bit by someone. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: appearances on various shows and in magazines do not help establish notability or provide RS to build bio articles; the sources must be about the subject. I've not see such sources yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per samwinchester. Pwolit iets (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above keep comments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete assertions of notability or numbers of films are not evidence of passing the gng. Provide citation or this is a gng fail. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't mention my response on this same concept at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people), here is the end of my reply, "...'of less interest'. Why should Wikipedia editors say that we have more or less interest in a King of Denmark than in a pornbio topic with more than 100 film credits? That is one of the main benefits of our notability guideline, that Wikipedia editors don't tell the world what attracts their attention. You also indicate unreasonably that films, that do not expire, are "ephemera". Again, most pornbio topics are orders of magnitude more wp:notable than 15th century kings, and gerrymandering notability to pick winners and losers undermines our policies and guidelines. Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia infested with publicists for 15th century Danish kings? Are press releases hawking the wonders of their reigns issued on a daily basis? Aren't half the cats on YouTube more notable than porn performers by the standard you're pushing? (OK, not half, but they'll still outnumber the porn performers. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We already did this. You realise this is an encyclopaedia and that there will be a fair few scholarly and erudite academic books, papers, dissertations about the Danish kings of the 15th century - and very a interesting and historically significant lot they are too. Did you know that this period was entirely during the period of the Kalmar Union and saw the rise of the House of Oldenburg that the current Danish Royals are descended from? Any real understanding of the interrelation between Norway, Sweden and Denmark must include an understanding of their joined and and separate histories and this comes back to the Kalmar union and before. So yes, Kings of Denmark in the 15th century are significantly more important and academically interesting that some PR/press released puffed-up article about some transient woman who has sex on camera for money to make a living. Sorry I don't shared your strangely skewed view of the world but I'm rather glad that I don't - but I bet that in 50 years people will still be interested in old kings of Denmark and this individual - well much less so. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that Margaret I, who reigned in 1401, was the last Danish female royal until the current Danish queen, and received attention in 1953 during a constitutional amendment in Denmark to allow the return of female royals. (I think I have a DYK submission there.) Still, in my (US-oriented) high-school history studies, we only learned about the Hanseatic league. This is a paperless encyclopedia, so there is no need to pick one or the other of these two topics. Nor is this a decision left to Wikipedia editors under our notability guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under our notability guideline one is shown to have enduring interest to academics and the other.. well .. not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply fails GNG. I see a lot of vague claims for notability, but no hard evidence. Lepricavark (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2016 (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.