Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasmin Scott

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Scott[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Declined PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO notability. References are trivial tabloid coverage, no major accomplishments to warrant an encyclopedia article. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The article should not be deleted as the content has been modified. She was was on the cover of People (magazine) in 2017 and also featured as its cover girl. also the person is on several media news websites like thesun.co.uk , mirror.co.uk, dailytelegraph.com.au, dailystar.co.au, IMDB , supported by various other sources.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4360808/naked-dating-couple-grope-sex-yasmin-scott-porn-star/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm8338319/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/naked-dating-contestant-yasmin-scott-11085146
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/raunching-naked-dating-couple-told-we-are-not-allowed-to-broadcast-sex/news-story/586f54b73db43fddf0ede33e8ff37a79
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/real-life/641169/KIIS-FM-Naked-date-boobs-touch-video-kyle-jackie-o-kiss-sex
--Rashkeqamar (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rashkeqamar: I mean this in the nicest possible way, if you think a piece in The Sun entitled "Naked Dating star who groped and tried to bed blind date on live show exposed as a secret PORN STAR with rubber glove fetish and a very filthy offer" is a suitable source to use on a biography of a living person then you should probably avoid editing BLPs. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems from the article that person concerned was on cover of Penthouse Australia Black Label in April 2016, which is quite significant as Penthouse is a huge brand. there is also mention of about 30 porn films, which is quite significant.--Chutrandi (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was this editor's 3rd edit on Wikipedia Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. IMDb is not a reliable source because it is usergenerated and tabloid sources such as the Daily Star are also not considered reliable especially for biographies of living people, note the telegraph is the Australian tabloid not the UK broadsheet Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, no evidence of notability, fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Penthouse Australia magazine cover girl can't be ignored. Its not only IMDB, dailytelegraph is a big independent source. A look at other pornographic actress reveal that there are pages of multiple porn actress which are existing on Wikipedia but way little content, take for example- Angell Summers.--Maithilityagi (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was this editor's 5th edit on Wikipedia Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The People magazine mentioned by Rashkeqamar is an Australian magazine apparently unrelated to the American magazine linked in their vote. Trivialist (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single event - no lasting notability. Aoziwe (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No obvious BLP-compliant sources out there - a news search throws up a bunch of Daily Mail gossip pieces and a load of other trash. I think Rashkeqamar has managed to produce a list of the worst possible WP:BLPSOURCES-violating tabloids in the UK. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, for Porn actors, Penthouse, IMDB , Internet Adult Film Database and some other main stream articles are enough to prove its notability. I have seen enough number of articles on porn articles which exist on various wikipedia- be it English, French, Italian, etc. --Merwadoin (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Penthouse is the Australian edition of same Penthouse (magazine), and this is quite popular in Australia also. --Rashkeqamar (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC) striking second keep vote from this editor, only one allowed per editor Atlantic306 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This AFD seems to have attracted some editors with very few edits. One of those editors has only made two previous edits, and those were in July of last year. I don't want to accuse anyone of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here, but this smells awfully fishy. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A cursory glance over the Google reveals that the person concerned has worked for major pornographic production companies including Brazzers, Digital Sin, Reality Kings, Evil Angel (studio), Digital Playground and Fleshbot, within 2 years of her porn career, which is quite significant. For a pornographic actress to act in so many production houses , is a remarkable feat.--Renpoiya (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That just says to me that she can't hold down a steady job. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was Renpoiya's 6th edit on Wikipedia Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, after analyzing this article with other pornographic actors' articles, there are sufficient independent sources to prove its notability. Adult Film Database and Internet Adult Film Database can give a very good idea of how notable a porn actor is in terms of number of films, and Yasmin Scott is fairly passing that thing with a number of films done for the biggest porn production house Brazzers.--Rehmanbarua (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)**[reply]
Delete as failing WP:PORNBIO. Being in a lot of productions isn't one of the listed criteria and notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The article features her work in her life. She is twice Australian penthouse model, which is a big thing for an erotic model.

http://www.adventurefittravel.com/radio/item/657-72-yasmin-scott
Independent sources indicate she is a rising star from Australian porn industry.--Rashkeqamar (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Struck third keep vote from this editor Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rising star" suggests she is not yet notable (see WP:TOOSOON). Please review the notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable; WP:TOOSOON, if the subject ever will. Appearing in multiple productions is nothing special, and is not a basis for notability. Also, there seems to be a lot of SPA votes here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and clean out that sock drawer). Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Mo legitimate assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real claim of passing WP:PORNBIO. Coverage comes from low quality tabloids concerning a single event. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2017 (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.