Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriella Fox (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Tending towards "keep" on the basis of the arguments by MichaelQSchmidt.  Sandstein  10:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Fox[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gabriella Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Text is generally promotional, and references are almost entirely presskit pieces, not independent coverage, and provide no significant biographical information. Most GNews hits are spurious, the few remaining apparently go to castlists for a single film; no relevant GBooks hits. First AFD turned on the now-rejected single-nomination standard; second AFD was was closed as keep despite having an 80% delete !vote. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails PORNBIO. If this non-entity appeared in documentaries rather than fuck flicks, this probably would have been prodded out the door on the first afternoon. Carrite (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO, it has been the third time since this article has been PROD, and in the second one, (Gabriella Fox (2nd nomination)), DELETE consensus was reached, however an admin did not close the AfD properly. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 04:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the admin used a valid line of reasoning in closing it... he rightfully pointed out that a subject can fail the specific PORNBIO guidelines and still meet one of the other ones (e.g., ANYBIO or BASIC). Now having said that, I don't think the other ones were properly met at the time... and I'm not seeing anything in the article as it is now to argues for notability under the other criteria. Tabercil (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Person meets the WP:BIO criteria. She has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Being the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject would be necessary, but not sufficient to establish notability. Here, tho, we need not get that far. Agree with nominator's analysis. These aren't intellectually independent reliable sources. Clear away the promotional dreck and press kit stuff and you're left with references to the cast list for one film. David in DC (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then by all means, rescue the article. As it stands now, it's ripe for AfD. But please take a look at the first AfD on this. It's been rescued once before. At that time, I thought the improvements were enough to shut down the 1st AfD. But there's been no improvement since. No article is better than one that's this far below our standards. David in DC (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No article starts out FA or GA. And I have "rescued" plenty of non-porn articles that other editors may have been either too recalcitrant or too lazy (not meaning you) to do so themselves, and many of these WITH the help of others. Lack of past effort is a reason to fix it yourself, rather than demand such of others. So please, I would encourage and applaud your efforts to "rescue" it yourself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, this sorta thing is getting tiring, as I have seen it from you in past AfDs. Please discuss the Fox News link in detail and explain how a story about some kid who screened her movie at a college, a story that simply name-drops her name and the movie title, establishes notability. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, this sorta thing is getting tiring, as I have seen it from you in past AFDs. So rather than your looking at only the weakest of the lot found in a diligent search and, by concentrating only on that weakest, then imply that all potential sources that could ever possibly be used per policy to verify even some small aspect not yet included in an article, must themselves be significant coverage, please explain why verifiability of a fact in a reliable source must always be significant or be thus ignorable as a source. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of comment both tiresome and disruptive, and it ought to embarrass Mr Schmidt, but it won't. If Mr. Schmidt's output represents a "diligent search," as he claims, then he ought to be supporting deletion. The AVN/XBIZ sources are all either press releases or presskit writeups, something that should be evident just by noticing the often-virtually-verbatim segments in "articles" from the two different publications. Despite Mr. Schmidt's protestations that Tarc was "looking at only the weakest" of the non-porn industry sources, the majority of the sources he lists do no more than recite the subject's name in a castlist. None give any genuinely significant coverage to the performer; the only information to be gleaned is that a Chilean publication identifies her as a Chilean actress. And it's pretty clear that Mr. Schmidt, despite his claim of diligence, hasn't actually bothered to check out the sources -- for example, "Écran Large," which he characterizes as a "non-porn mainstream source," is actually a porn vendor site, where the "coverage" of Gabriella Fox is just a list of videos you can pay to access! Even worse, the "Pure People" source has nothing to do with the article subject, but mentions in passing Vanessa L. Williams's 10-year-old daughter, Sasha Gabriella Fox, who is clearly neither a porn performer nor the subject of this article. It's hard to conceive of how a reasonable editor could think otherwise, absent carelessness or lack of interest in accuracy approaching reckless disruption. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rudeness to others who are themselves remaining polite is what is "tiresome and disruptive", so you might please cease such and accept that search results were offered in good faith. I should have been sure to include a "-Sasha" in my search, and appreciate that you looked at and were able to dismiss two of the found sources. I have thus struck them above and below, and I will not refer to those two as mainstream sources dealing with the individual in question. This attempt to distract from the greater issue aside, any WP:RS that can be used to verify even a portion of a BLP, does not have to be itself significant... and as you pointed out, now we can verify that she is a Chilean actress. Until it is declared that the genre sources already deemed per consensus as reliable for sourcing articles about the porn industry are somehow now NOT reliable, we still must evenly apply policy and guideline. Showing notability through meeting WP:GNG through acceptable genre sources and having her works verifiable in non-porn sources is enough. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The primary rudeness comes from you, Mr. Schmidt. For all your veneer of fake civility, you accuse others of laziness in the face of your "diligence," even though you're the one caught with your pants down because your "diligence" didn't even extend to doing the most cursory check on the sources you cite -- which prove so often, as here not to be what you claim. Nor is there any WP:CONSENSUS, as you claim, about the general validity of porn intustry trade journals as reliable sources demonstrating notability -- there was a group opinion reached in an individual Wikiproject, which doesn't establish a general consensus, not to mention the community practice shown in prior AFDs of determining whether, case-by-case, such coverage reaches the level required to show notability, or whether it amounts just to warmed-over PR/publicity, failing the "independence" prong of WP:RS/WP:BLP. Recitations of cast lists, standing alone, aren't sufficient to establish notability for the individual cast members, even if a porn flick they're in might turn out to be notable. And that's pretty much all you've cited. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on you for your indefensible incivility and assumptions of bad faith with any who do not agree with you. I remain polite because that is what our civility policy require. It's a pity you are unable to do the same... or even "fake" the actual civility that others have shown toward you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has come up before, and as it means less and less since it has been dismantled, I still believe it is time to declare PORNBIO as historic and properly fall back to criteria better set to address notability per WP:BIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails all applicable notability guidelines. 1 group AVN nominee is a pornbio fail. A smattering of porn festival and industry blurbs are routine coverage. Of course AVN and others are going to do write-ups of their tartlets, that does not make them notable to the outside world. Free publicity with a Wikipedia page for all these marginal people just need to go. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    With respects, as was wisely seen at an earlier AFD, the deprecated PORNBIO is not the only applicable criteria. And that articles should be deleted because they have not been improved as quickly as some might wish are not views supported by editing policy or the basic guideline for consideration for inclusion. And it matters little is a topic is notable to only one area of interest, else we'd have articles on scientists covered in scientific journals or actors and films covered in film magazines or athletes covered in sports magazines deleted on- afte-the other with that same reasoning. While we can wait for WP:N and WP:RS to be rendered historic, until then we do expect and require that ANY topic to be written up in what are accepted as reliable sources for THAT topic, no matter what the topic might be. And worth repeating, we DO have this individual written of in numerous NON-porn sources (Fox News La Nacion La Tercera Digital Journal Pure People Vanguardia Liberal Écran Large Новости шоу бизнеса Destak Yoki ) as well as in multiple genre RS.(AVN(1) AVN(2) AVN(3) [2] AVN(4) XBIZ(1) XBIX(2) XBIX(3))
    I do not care for porn topics, and have stated at other AFDs that as Wikipedia is accessible by minor chidren, we would be far better off with tham all being removed. But one of Wikipedia's basic policies is that it is not censored, and my personally not liking the topic aside, policy specifically allows such and the criteria set in place allows recognition that improved immediately or not, the topic is notable and the article can be expanded over time and through regular editing through use of these aditional sources. We are allowed to recognize in good faith that something demonstrable improvable CAN be improved over time and through regular editing without our ignoring the policy that encourages that improvement or our demanding that it be removed simply because no one else improved it... yet. Immediatism is not a policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not censoring anything. I like porn; in fact I've already liked it twice today. I just loathe seeing the project used as a cheap publicity platform for unremarkable "actors", and the combination of an extremely weak sub-notability guideline plus the "I can take a pic at a porn fair and upload it for free hosting" nature of the Commons provides the porn industry with just that. You can pipe cute phrases through whatever wiki-acronym you wish, but what we still have here is a porn actress who has been interviewed by the porn industry, and has been nominated by the porn industry for a group scene, and did not even win. This whole thing is a (appropriately termed) circle-jerk of "I'll say you're notable if you say I' notable". Tarc (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're not censoring, and I never said you were. What I said was that even though I personally do not like inclusion of porn topics in an encyclopdia accessible by minor children, that topic is allowed per WP:NOTCENSORED. What I also elaborated upon is we have a porn actress that has been covered by multiple sources accepted as reliable for sourcing that genre, AND that she has been covered in multiple NON-porn sources. The general notability guidelines must be aplied equally to all topics or it becomes meaningless. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Her filmography is enough to let me be confident about my Keep say here. Subject meets WP:GNG .--BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A nine-flick credit list (one recycling an old scene), where she didn't even have a billed role in the only one that wasn't generic smut? Perhaps you'd care to explain this in terms of policy and/or guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article currently list one film she was in which has an article, proving it was notable enough by Wikipedia standards, and a major award in this industry she was nominated for. So she is notable. Dream Focus 00:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Billing in one porn film that has an article now confers notability? Does this guideline exist somewhere, or was it made up on-the-spot? Tarc (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ENTERTAINER says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." This person meets that. Dream Focus 11:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The last time I checked, "one", by consensus, did not qualify as "multiple"; nor does an apparently unbilled role as "Belly Dancer" appear to qualify as "significant". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Schmidt. The sources he dug up satisfy GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This is one of those troubling ones. I'm not a fan of porn, myself. And recognize that an open-to-children internet raises issues of concern in this area. But I can't find a way around our guidelines here, which support a keep. Perhaps people should consider taking a look at the guideline, with an eye towards changing it -- if they do, feel free to ping me as to the conversation. A comment to all, btw -- Cut out the childishness and personal attacks that are unrelated to this AfD (by all means, if they are related to this AfD, and refer to an editor's editing and not the person ... continue).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Schmidt's argument is marginally the most compelling. She does seem to fit notability criteria. Is there some reason why a delete argument cannot stand alone? Is it necessary to trawl the thread getting your tuppence in again and again and again? Not, IMHO, if you want to retain credibility and objectivity. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriella_Fox_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1080169561"