Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Jaymes (2nd 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 keep. Deletion reasoning primarily focused on that sourcing was from a single event, but that position was disputed on both policy and actual (as in, not just one event) grounds, to a sufficient strength to represent a rough consensus. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Jaymes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Jessica Jaymes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ONEEVENT. Possibly redirect to the AVN hall of fame. All the sourcimg relates to the subjects death. We are not an obituary and otherc claims of notabilty are depreciated when pornbio was devalued. Spartaz Humbug! 20:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Stories about her death from the BBC:[1], People:[2], and numerous other news outlets demonstrate her notability. He membership in the AVN Hall of Fame also demonstrates that she is notable in the industry. Thriley (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • all the coverage is of one event so since we are not news there needs to be evidence of enduring coverage for the event to count for retention. As for AVN HoF this is 2021 and pornbio hasn’t been a thing for a very long time and its no longer criteria to keep an article. Afraid you argument doesn’t really address the policy based reasons for deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A BBC obituary for an American + AVN Hall of Fame would be enough for me for notability, although I could see why some might argue the other way. But international coverage of someone's death at least points towards notability (her death was also reported on by Notimex in Mexico).[3]
    There's at least one other time she got large media coverage, but it's very tabloid-y (mostly because it was first reported on by tabloids and then picked up by regular newspapers): a rumor that she slept with Nick Lachey,[4][5][6][7] and then later about how she wanted to sell the rights to the story.[8][9] - Whisperjanes (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel you are also proving the point of this being oneevent. As I mentioned HoF no longer confers notability so an argument on that basis is rejecting the community consensus on how we assess notability for porn performers. Spartaz Humbug! 10:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate your opinion - like I said, I can see why some might argue the other way; I think we just interpret the sources differently. To be clear, I am not arguing PORNBIO as a standard (I know its depreciated). I feel similarly to Thriley, which is that the HoF moreso "demonstrates that she is notable in the industry." The HoF award is extra, and I treat it like other top-industry awards that can't stand alone for determining notability. But an industry award + international obituaries + other sources seems beyond one event, at least to me. - Whisperjanes (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the nominator correctly points out in the intro, Jaymes is dead. So there is no WP:BLP concern. I further agree that most of the coverage came after her death. That happened with a lot of historical figures so should not exclude from N. There was also coverage during her life. Links are provided above and adding one in Polish from 2013.[10] Passes the WP:GNG well. All-in-all, the death per se was a minor event, and Jaymes had a passive role in it, so I would be against moving the article to Death Jessica Jaymes. The death was a trigger to write more about Jaymes. Did I say absolutely no WP:BLP concern? gidonb (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the only coverage is in death, in the usual celebrity Page Six way, then, one had a rather unremarkable and therefore (in Wikipedia terms) non-notable life. "Appeared as herself on the Howard Stern Show" is also a rather vivid marker of padding-the-resume. Zaathras (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can be improved, but was her only coverage after her death? The facts seem to point in a different direction. And while coverage after one's death is legitimate, you may want to review your conclusion if this point is so important to you. gidonb (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 6 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Jaymes_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1060091074"