Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Lee (2nd nomination)
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. Sandstein 06:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lucy Lee[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Lucy Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant independent coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If Lucy Lee doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO then it's broken. Polarpanda (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK Delete, fame is not the same as notability. Polarpanda (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this pornographic actress. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you look? Polarpanda (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can pass the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep She passes WP:GNG based on coverage at AVN (just do a search on her name). Including the current reference in the article, there are at least 2 more AVN articles that discuss Lee specifically, though not in extreme depth. I think part of the problem is, as with any current pornographic actress, the signal to noise ratio is just awful. Add to that a common name and it's even worse. Can we assume based on the coverage at AVN that more, deeper coverage exists elsewhere, just that a dedicated or knowledgeable enough editor hasn't gone a-searching yet? I'm not sure. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The current AVN reference in the article is basically an interview, so doesn't meet the "independent of the subject" part of WP:GNG. This is the nearest thing I can find to passing WP:GNG, but it's quite trivial. Some of the AVN references are about a different Lucy Lee. Epbr123 (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, here's a review of one of her movies which discusses her in some depth (though not extreme). This AVN article, while a relatively brief mention, provides some useful information. I guess it also goes without saying that, if we could use him, Luke Ford would be a tremendous source for this subject. Anyway, my point is that I think there's at least there's evidence to suggest notability, if not evidence that clearly satisfies the guidelines. But that's just my opinion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That "review" is from a retail site, and therefore is neither reliable nor counting toward notability. The AVN piece really isn't significant, and looks to be at least partly sourced from a company press release. It does say something about her standing in the industry that her contract was terminated in January and the leading trade mag didn't bother to report it until June. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still feel that we're dealing at least partially with an issue of signal to noise ratio rather than an actual absence of notability. Given the nature of pornography and the internet, there are going to be overall fewer sources, those sources will be harder to find, and many of them will have the additional goal of commercial success. We aren't going to find peer-reviewed journals, for instance. And as far as I can tell, none of the relevant magazines are indexed and available through services such as LexisNexis. To put it succinctly, I fear that this subject may have coverage that simply isn't being checked because none of the participants in this discussion has access to the relevant material. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That "review" is from a retail site, and therefore is neither reliable nor counting toward notability. The AVN piece really isn't significant, and looks to be at least partly sourced from a company press release. It does say something about her standing in the industry that her contract was terminated in January and the leading trade mag didn't bother to report it until June. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, here's a review of one of her movies which discusses her in some depth (though not extreme). This AVN article, while a relatively brief mention, provides some useful information. I guess it also goes without saying that, if we could use him, Luke Ford would be a tremendous source for this subject. Anyway, my point is that I think there's at least there's evidence to suggest notability, if not evidence that clearly satisfies the guidelines. But that's just my opinion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The current AVN reference in the article is basically an interview, so doesn't meet the "independent of the subject" part of WP:GNG. This is the nearest thing I can find to passing WP:GNG, but it's quite trivial. Some of the AVN references are about a different Lucy Lee. Epbr123 (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that is true as well. I'll add what little I've found later tonight perhaps. I understand the point about AVN having a store presently (I don't know if that's always been true?), although I don't know if that necessarily bars citing them. Fangoria has Amazon associate links, but I don't know that that should bar them from being cited regarding horror movies. They do dole out good and bad reviews after all, they don't profit more from the sales of the good ones than the bad ones; if in addition to selling things all they did was praise everything, that would be a bigger problem. Шизомби (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2009 (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.