Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (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 keep. no deletion argument except the nom JForget 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Riley[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT; no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline; GNews hits either trivial or relate to similarly named persons. Would-be starlet who made one porn video then got into lawsuits with her producers/merchandisers. Most sources are promotional, not independent of subject. Survived previous sock-infested AFD despite lack of legit keep !votes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous AFDs --78.100.251.96 (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Additionally, how many nominations is this? I'm seeing two 'second'nominations. --78.100.251.96 (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Article passes the WP:GNG, with several reliable sources in the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as more sources are available. Searches finds coverage by Front (magazine) and JoBlo as well as non-English coverage in Evenimentul Zilei, Magazin, La Voce D'Italia, DERF Magazine, L'Unione Sarda, and Vanguardia. In conjuncion with sources already in the article, WP:GNG has been met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you determined to embarass yourself, Michael? Most of those are just T&A pages that are hosted on minimally reliable "news" sites; the venerable "DERF magazine" page is just a bad translation (heavily T&A-illustrated) of the Wikipedia article, and the "Vanguardia" link reveals the otherwise unknown fact that Ms. Riley was responsible for the breakup of Kiefer Sutherland and Julia Roberts, a point that seems to have escaped the Hollywood press if not the entirety of the English-language media. It's always a good idea to read and review sources before you cite them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, your continued incivility when someone disagrees with your personal opinions, acts to make Wikipedia a sometimes unpleasent place to even try to offer an opinion. I made no claims about the sources, only showing that a search finds them... even if only on (your opinion) minimally reliable "news" sites. If these "minimally reliable news sites" show T&A of an actress who is known for her T&A, and it so offends you, then close your eyes. I have repeatedly stated that I do not think pornography belongs on Wikipedia, but your denigrating any other who dares disagrees with you, embarasses both yourself and the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me, spare all of us such whining. You claimed the "sources" you alluded to helped satisfy the GNG. You didn't bother to check the substance of them; they miss being independent and reliable by a country light-year. T&A pages which include little more than the equivalent of "Raven Riley is a hot porn star. Look at these hot pictures of her" aren't independent, reliable sources and do nothing to contribute to notability. Your false suggestion that I'm trying to argue that the sources should be ignored because they're "offensive" is much less civil than anything I've said; I think the sources should be ignored because they're worthless. The bottom line is that this is a performer who made a single, thoroughly non-notable porn film and fails every relevant notability standard, and your argument shows only that you'll defend the inclusion of virtually anything that's ever been mentioned online. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the reference in the article convinces me she satisfies the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2010 (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.