Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Stokely (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 and salt. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Stokely[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Recreated pornbio that fails the required necessary sourcing required by GNG, N & BLP. Please salt when this is deleted again. This should not have been recreated without a review but the creator is move warring to force this into mainspace so formal activity is required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. New facts since the 2018 deletion may prevent a G4 speedy, but the subject still lacks reliable secondary source coverage to support WP:BASIC or WP:ENTERTAINER notability. A WP:BEFORE search for independent sources find the Newsweek op-ed by the subject, various ask-a-pornstar quotes from the subject and porn trade press releases. While List of Penthouse Pets or List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame are plausible redirect targets, the new page's content should be nuked and paved at the very least. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retention of the article After reading your eligibility criteria, the article is obviously eligible. The notoriety is evident when you consider the awards and accolades.--Hemerocalle40 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 2019 RfC regarding PORNBIO, porn awards count for very little. That goes for AVN Hall of Fame inductees too. Claims of meeting criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:ANYBIO need to be attributable to independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my ivote would be to keep these pornstar bios. But alas, I am not in charge and Pornbio was depreciated. Unfortunately numerous awards are common in the industry. Sadly delete. Lightburst (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, ladies, you are severe...I still spent a few hours trying to make this article believable...--Hemerocalle40 (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time spend editing is not a consideration, sorry. Zaathras (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of coverage in sources, same as prior discussions, same as others who have pointed out the same above. Zaathras (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this filth and salt the earth.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk)
- I’m no fan of badly sourced BLPs but your comment goes much too far. Filth? Really? Unsourced for sure but we are not censored. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pornography whores have absolutely nothing to do in an encyclopedia: hell, even university professors have high margins to get an articlke of their own.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's really inappropriate. Do not use that word about living people on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 00:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and ~~warn/sanction~~ creator for not respecting AfD consensus and re-creating these porn actors. (See also User_talk:Gene93k#About_the_article_"Kristen_Scott" for another similar article) Star Mississippi 19:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck sanction comment, this was a misunderstanding of en-wiki policy per the below. Delete comment remains. Star Mississippi 23:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi:, In my defense, I usually contribute on the French wikipedia. I had no idea that these articles had already been deleted before here.--Hemerocalle40 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is repeat moving allowed in the French wikipedia? If so, happy to strike my comment. That's the broader issue with my vote. Star Mississippi 22:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi:, On the French wiki, re-editing an article is possible if it meets the eligibility criteria ;).--Hemerocalle40 (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. These sources are not sufficiently reliable for a biographical article.—S Marshall T/C 00:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are some notable "pornography (BLP violation removed)" (come on, don't act like they don't belong on Wikipedia) but she isn't one of them. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostDestroyer100:, WP:BLP applies to all parts of the Wikipedia, even deletion discussions. You cannot use that W-word to describe a living person. Zaathras (talk)

@Zaathras: not endorsing or anything, but pretty sure GhostDestroyer100 is quoting Polska_jest_Najważniejsza's !vote above. Star Mississippi 21:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaathras: Yes, I am just quoting. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2021 (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.