Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Cade

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 delete. Insufficent reliable sources to establish notability. One keep vote was from an IP account whose only contribution was this debate. Another keep vote noted that the article needs more sources. Other keep votes are unconvincing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Cade[edit]

Lily Cade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Only substantial coverage is from interviews with gossip columnist, Cindi Loftus (Ladiez Night, see Luke Ford) and a self-published blog (wordpress). Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. czar · · 09:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Only possibly significant award noms are scene-related; the "Feminist Porn Award" is given by a retailer to products it sells and therefore does not contribute to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG. I'm finding only passing mentions by reliable sources. Fails PORNBIO with only minor or scene-related awards and nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Every award helps →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Feminist Porn Awards are sponsored by a retail store, but they are a significant award for the queer/indie porn scene. Lily's website won this award, and Good For Her retail store in no way sells websites. She's also been nominated for multiple scene related AVN awards, which as a girl/girl performer, are the only awards she's really eligible for at AVN. In addition, two movies she directed (Art School Dykes and Butches and Babes) have been nominated for best all girl release at the AVN awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.43.191 (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - AVN awards. Properly sourced. Seems fine to me. Looking for more sources. Web Warlock (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those AVN award nominations are scene-related. Per editor consensus, scene-related awards don't count toward notability. As for the sources, most are primary. The only references with any depth are an AVN article that looks like a press release and an interview in a blog. Certainly not enough to pass GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that it fails GNG. Yes, there could be more information and some of these sources are Primary, but this article needs a refimprove tag, not a afd. Web Warlock (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus isn't also policy to engage in a discussion before going to AFD? Looking at the history of the article prior to AFD it was being worked on yet no discussion by the Nom on a potential AFD. Web Warlock (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1. Has won a well-known and significant industry award, and 2. has made unique contributions to the LGBT genre of pornography. I do agree that additional secondary sources should be gathered and introduced into the article though. Nicoli Maege (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until some of the above keep voters will prove their claims. Noone has provided a single source that document the "unique contributions to the LGBT genre" or the significance of her awards (better said, honorable mentions). Arguments like "I disagree that it fails GNG" have no value without providing evidences of the contrary. Cavarrone (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of have been, or have you not read the history? Research takes time and about 90% of the sites I need to read are blocked from work. Web Warlock (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which "history" do you refer? I don't care any claim made without providing evidences, you and others voted "keep" about one week ago and you all were unable to find ten minutes of your time to offer us a minimal coverage about her? I have more faith in users like the nominator or Gene93k that made those researches and failed in finding such coverage. If they were wrong you need to prove that, this is how Wikipedia works. Cavarrone (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 16:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that she didn't actually win any Feminist Porn Awards. "Honorable Mention" isn't winning. "Her" website may have won, but that award should properly be attributed to its unnamed webmaster, whatever significance it might have. The lack of reliable sourcing for the claims supporting notability remains conspicuous. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2013 (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/Lily_Cade&oldid=1137988681"