Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isis Nile (2nd 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isis Nile[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Article was previously nominated in 2007 for lack of notability and was subsequently deleted; this version of the article was created November 26. Trivialist (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing keeping it from an A7 speedy are claims of appearing in films that won porn awards. No reliable sources in the article. Only RS coverage is an incidental mention or two. Fails PORNBIO and GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:MILL adult actor. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No awards or nominations. No assertion of notability. Just another BLP without nontrivial reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue has been raised before and didn't pass then, even less reason for it to do so now. Furthermore, she is also a model as well as a dancer (her pages has been edited to reflect that) which takes her notability beyond merely WP:PORNBIO. Reliable sources have now been intered in relevant places.Holanthony (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the issues were raised before, the article was deleted. WP:PORNBIO explicitly includes adult models and the article lacks well-sourced claims for passing WP:ENT as a dancer. The sources you added are a passing mention in a book from a predatory publisher, links that don't even mention the subject, and several citations to men's magazines. Significant coverage by independent, reputable sources is still lacking. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now re-structured and partly re-written the article, and included several new RS (among them an article from a scientific journal), which should by far qualify as "independent, reputable sources". She does have other mainstream claims to fame, namely that she was a featured dancer on the Soul Train in the 1990s. She has also appeared in a couple of (non-explicit) video games. Thus, she should meet the notability claim in this capacity, at least for WP:ENT if not for WP:PORNBIO.Holanthony (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that her appearance on the Soul Train is also listed on IMDb, which I have now entered to the bio. She was a recurrent performer on the show and is this notable. For instance here:[1] [2]Holanthony (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Soul Train claim is particularly fishy. It surfaced on IMDB just about the time the AFD began here - note that it's not included in the versions archived earlier this year at the Internet Archive [3] and has essentially no Google hits supporting it. [4] It appears to be based on a misreading of a list circulated via message boards, where the claim is made for the performer immediately preceding this one. (Very NSFW link [5] It's strikingly odd that the claim has apparently never been made by the performer herself or in her publicity material, if it were to be true. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Heather Hunter may have been a dancer on the very same show does not negate the fact that Isis Nile has been featured on the show as well. Fact remains, the appearance in question is sourced by a WP:RS, and as such, it has been vetted by the editors at IMDb by whatever process they use. Your comment regarding that you find it "fishy" is not only WP:OR, it above and beyond falls under this argument and seems to be a blatant case of WP:JDL. Yours is not the role to invalidate reliable sources as per their acceptance by Wikipedia standards, even if you may not like what they say, or if they happen to contradict your world view. Holanthony (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is may be a reliable source for filmographies only. Their "process" for biographical information is crowd sourcing. Isis Nile's entry is credited to "A. Nonymous". Whatever reliable information coming from IMDb is generally not considered substantial for notability. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, although her appearance on the Soul Train (of which there were multiple) does fall under "filmography" and is in this regard a reliable source. I believe this is fairly undisputed by the Wikipedia community at large. Even so, her appearance on that show is further supported by multiple additional sources, such as a mention on iafd.com (which is also considered RS) and in Petrovich's book. Both of which are sourced in the article. Holanthony (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IAFD is composed primarily of user-generated content, and is generally not an RS. Even Wikiproject Pornography concedes that "Biographical information on film database websites are not considered reliable, and should not be used in articles", specifically listing IAFD. No one except you argues that user comments on such websites, which is where the claim regarding Nile appears on IAFD, are anything but grossly noncompliant with BLP requirements. Posting a comment offsite and than citing it yourself in a notability discussion is hardly good faith behaviour.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But now we were discussing the occurrence on IMDb, but I guess you chose to deliberately "misunderstand" that simple point. Holanthony (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. in your previous comment, you state "iafd.com (which is also considered RS)". Are you "deliberately misunderstanding" your own words now? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, try, PLEASE TRY to read properly (if you are able) before embarrassing yourself further. My "previous" comment was a direct response to Gene93k. Which site does he refer to? I'll give you a hint (in case it's too challenging for you to read five paragraphs up from this one). It starts with an "I" and ends with a "b". Holanthony (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original research policy applies to article content, not discussions. This should be fairly obvious to anyone contemplating the idea. Rebb ing 18:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has since been several edits made and the criteria should now be met for notability.Holanthony (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - GNG or even BASIC hasn't been met and so therefore should be deleted accordingly –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to WP:GNG, the subject needn't be "the main topic of the source material" in order for the coverage to be deemed "significant". Her appearance on the Soul Train were frequent and thus not "trivial". She thus qualifies for notability as per Wiki guidelines. This seems more that this is a matter of WP:JDL. Holanthony (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing to a show or other work is not the same thing as being covered, significantly or otherwise, by that work. Even if it were, there is no reliable sourcing for the claim that she has appeared on Soul Train. Rebb ing 18:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is still considered reliable for filmography by Wikirules. You have a problem with that, I suggest to launch a motion to change the fundamental Wiki principles on RS. Holanthony (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Wiki rule" declaring IMDb to be a reliable source. The use of IMDb filmography information appears to be uncontroversial, cf. WP:Citing IMDb (essay), and I have no objection to such use. Rebb ing 00:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recently it was added that she appeared in mainstream media which is part of WP:PORNBIO as told by @Holanthony:. --Gstree (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not misrepresent the terms of PORNBIO. PORNBIO requires "featured" appearances in "multiple" mainstream media. An uncredited role in a single TV series falls well below that standard, even without taking the dubious nature of the claim into account. This !vote should be given no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you say it was uncredited? It is not listed as such on IMDb. On the contrary, she is credited as a "Dancer", and she has been featured multiple times. I say you vote be given no weight seeing as you see user-conspiracies on every single page discussion were your proposed deletions are challenged. Holanthony (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For the record, I'll quote the WikiProject Pornography guidelines on IAFD: "(IAFD) – Attempts to be the adult film equivalent of the IMDb. Sometimes has a better biography, usually has a better film list. ... Their filmographies are considered reliable, but opinion is split on whether their biographical information is reliable." There does not appear to be anything controversial cited to IAFD in this article here at this time, and IAFD is very routinely used for both filmography and simple biographical information in many, many of these types of articles. IMDb is basically only reliable for its filmographies. Guy1890 (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agreed, and I can't see that appearances on Soul Train can be considered as anything else BUT filmography. Thus IMDb is fully valid. Holanthony (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMDb isn't infallible. For less major credits, it's easy to add someone with a credit like "Dancer," and have it slip through. Also, as far as I can tell, Soul Train never credited their dancers onscreen, and no other dancers are listed on the episodes that she's credited for. So even if she did appear in the episodes listed by the IMDb, it's about like being an uncredited extra in a film—you may have appeared in the background of dozens of films, but that isn't enough to qualify you for an article. Trivialist (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, that's a completely different discussion isn't it? Whether or not IMDb fails in its filmography control or not? Still, that discussion only results in speculation wither way, fact remains that she IS listed, and that she IS credited, and that IMDb IS considered RS for filmography as the rules stand today. Furthermore, the appearance on that show is also supported by other sources such as the Perkovich source etc. Holanthony (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule declaring that IMDb is a reliable source for filmography or for any other purpose. Rebb ing 01:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've already linked to at least one essay far above in this same AfD that pretty much says the opposite of what you've stated directly above. Are there better sources than IMDb for film/TV credits? Sure, but the fact remains that IMDb is used pretty extensively as a reliable source across a wide swath of Wikipedia at this late date. FWIW, there's nothing in this particular Wikipedia article here currently cited to IMDb that makes the subject of this article notable. Guy1890 (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DEL8 for lack of notability under any of the applicable guidelines.
The available coverage falls far short of the significant, independent, and reliable coverage required by GNG and BASIC. Of the BIO additional criteria, ENT and PORNBIO points 1 and 2 are clearly inapplicable. The third PORNBIO criterion—multiple appearances in notable mainstream media—deserves analysis. Setting aside sourcing issues, Ms. Nile's supposed role as an unnamed dancer on Soul Train could be understood as her being "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media," thus satisfying PORNBIO. However, read in context with the rest of the BIO guideline, and appreciating the significance indicated by the word "featured," I do not believe such a permissive interpretation is correct. Instead, I read the criterion to require that the pornographic performer have appeared in and been covered personally and significantly ("featured") by multiple mainstream shows: this aligns with the intent of BIO and the purpose of the notability requirement.
Furthermore, even if PORNBIO were met here, PORNBIO, as with the other BIO additional criteria, is to be used in mine run cases where notability is plausible; it is not to be used to find notability where notability is obviously lacking. See BIO § Additional criteria ("[M]eeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included."); cf. WHYN. Ultimately, the notability requirement isn't about whether or not someone deserves to be included; it's about whether or not it's possible to write a balanced (NPOV), reliable (RS), useful article based on secondary sources (OR, SYNTH). Rebb ing 03:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are mediocre, the coverage is slender rather than significant, and possibly appearing as an uncredited dancer on Soul Train is not a plausible claim of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 11 December 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.