Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 February 11
2011 February 13 >

12 February 2011[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Arabcartoon.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)
Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 3#File:Arabcartoon.jpg Cunard (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This DRV has been archived before, I had no chance to respond. Here are my responses: --Raphael1 10:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you explain why this image meets WP:NFCC? If not, there is really no chance of undeletion.Hobit (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I did explain that on the deleted page using the {{Non-free use rationale}} template. --Raphael1 10:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It'd not being asked if you did, it's being asked for you to do so again here. It's you who is asking for it to be review, so it's not unreasonable to ask you to do that here. Given that image was apparently removed due to not having an appropriate rationale it's going to be difficult to evaluate that without you telling us that rationale. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh? First you remove the very document, where I give the rationale and then you ask me to do it here again? Is this some kind of memory game?--Raphael1 17:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the image is available at http://www.topdog08.com/2006/02/index.html - scroll down to February 04, 2006 - Cartoon from Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad. PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that in a situation where a newspaper publishes a 3 panel comic strip, we could possibly claim that a single panel was within policy, however reproducing the comic strip in its entirety is almost certainly outside of policy. PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is reproducing the Muhammad cartoons in its entirety (12 cartoons) confirming to this same policy? Doesn't Wikipedia prove the cartoon to be correct by showing a double-standard here?--Raphael1 10:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are individual cartoons presented on page, not multiple images from the same cartoon, so it's not directly comparable. If those on the Jyllands-Posten article were multi-frame cartoons then there would be a stronger case we shouldn't show every frame of every cartoon. However this is still was what about X issue, the correct place to debate the other image is there. As above though this image was deleted not for that reason (though it may well have been had it gone through an FFD debate), but for the lack of suitable rationale. That needs to be resolved first. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • As Raphael1 says above, the file did have a rationale. PhilKnight (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • So the deletion via CSD "F6: Non-free file with no non-free use rationale: invalid fair-use tag" was incorrect? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some confusion here, so let me lay out the history. The file had, since it was uploaded in 2008, the following rationale:
Use of the image in the Wikipedia article [[Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] is believed to qualify as fair use since:
# It is not of sufficient resolution to facilitate easy reading of the article
# It is a single page, not part of a systematic mirror of ''Al Ghad''<nowiki />'s articles or images, and thus should not significantly inhibit ''Al Ghad'' from selling their content.
# It is politically significant. The JP [[Muhammed cartoons]] sparked controversy, but have been widely defended as an act of freedom of speech. In return many Muslims accused the "West" as being hypocritical resp. having a double standard.
# It adds significantly to the [[Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] article and is being used there for informational purposes only.

SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) tagged it as disputed fair use on Jan. 24. On Jan. 26 Raphael1 (talk · contribs) took the existing rationale and converted it to the standard template form; however, he did not change the wording. On Jan. 30 Feydey (talk · contribs) deleted it, clearly judging the rationale insufficient. Raphael1 listed it at DRV on Feb. 3, but did not respond to requests to say why it shouldn't have been deleted. I closed that debate on Feb. 12 as endorse, since no reason to undelete had ever been provided. Raphael1 then immediately opened the present review. So it is Feydey's deletion on the grounds of insufficient rationale that is being questioned. I agree with that deletion on the grounds PhilKnight states above: that this simply does not constitute fair use, because there's no reason to provide the entire work instead of a part. So my view is endorse. Chick Bowen 20:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • List at FFD The distinction made above about "individual cartoons presented on page, not multiple images from the same cartoon" when the individual cartoons were published together on the same day, is pedantic . We accepted those cartoons because the articles could not be written understandably with the entire array of them. ditto here. As I understand the history, this is the first time the cartoons are being discussed. Perhaps the best thing is to discuss them on FFD before coming here to review the result. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it's pedantic, they are different items ownership of belongs to different individuals, so I don't see it as a direct comparison, i.e. it's not something for us to resolve in this forum. As said it wasn't deleted for that reason so we shouldn't really be endorsing it for that reason. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right that the fact of their being the work of multiple independent artists might make a difference—I had not thought of that, to be honest. . But do the artists own the copyright or the publisher?
    I think the NFCC rationale says the artists. In a debate on it I'd probably be interested if the artists had released them under a free license, if so the overall would probably be a good illustration of the overall impact, if not then I'd probably be going towards it being over use of others copyrighted works (how far different is it from other montages say?), it's certainly not clear cut to me with the limited look I've done, just a sufficiently different scenario. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot understand, why an image, which possibly violates 12 different copyrights, is somehow more appropriate for fair use, than a cartoon done by a single artist. And if this is not the reason, what is the reason for its speedy deletion? Why has this image never been listed on FFD? --Raphael1 18:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be appropriate for fair use, but that doesn't give this image a free pass to also not be appropriate for fair use, each image must stand or fall on it's own merits. Two wrongs don't make a right etc. As I said above see what about x?. It's also a sufficiently different case that any discussion on one is unlikely to be a significant overlap on the other. As to why it's never been listed at FFD, No one is obliged to list anything, so the reason it hasn't been listed is that no one has listed it. (It was actually listed here but that discussion didn't address the appropriateness under the NFCC criteria which is almost certainly a stronger line of enquiry). --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that mean you support a WP:CSD F7 for the Muhammad cartoons? If you don't, why not? --Raphael1 11:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the nTh time, this is about this image and no other, this image has to meet the policies, regardless of the correct/incorrect inclusion at this point in time of other images. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still interested in your answer resp why you prefer not to give one.--Raphael1 11:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) In fact I did change the wording (albeit slightly), and you never explained what's wrong with my fair use rationale, so I never knew what issue you have.--Raphael1 18:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    SchuminWeb has not participated in this discussion. I linked to his username above because I was describing his role. Chick Bowen 22:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and speedy close this unnecessary second review. The image (as used here [1]) was correctly found to be in breach of the NFCC principles. It was being used as a mere example illustrating a political sentiment that was also expressed in many other ways by many different sources, and thus in order to understand that sentiment it would have been perfectly sufficient to describe it and cite it to suitable textual sources. This particular artistic expression of it was not in itself notable and not in itself the object of sourced analytical discussion and coverage in secondary sources. In this respect it differs crucially from the original Jyllands-Posten "Mohammad" cartoons, where the cartoons themselves were the subject of our coverage, not merely a vehicle for illustrating it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly the political sentiment expressed in the Muhammad cartoons is also expressed in many other ways by many different sources, and thus it would have been perfectly sufficient to describe it. The Muhammad cartoons themselves are not the subject of any article but rather the controversy that followed its publication.--Raphael1 11:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC) I agree, that the Muhammad cartoons are relevant to the controversy and therefore to the J-P cartoon controversy article. But equally this cartoon in question certainly uniquely expresses a broadly held opinion, which makes it (maybe less, but still) significantly relevant for the Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. Don't you see the irony of this discussion after looking at the cartoon in question? [2] --Raphael1 12:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can just as easily "see the irony of the discussion" (or understand the POV of those people who perceive such an irony) after reading a well-summarized account of their arguments, sourced to reliable sources, in the article text. That's all that matters here. If the information can be conveyed in text, then the image is unnecessary, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we actually had the very same discussion on the 12 JP cartoons: Can't the information be conveyed in text? Are the cartoons really necessary? What opinions are necessary to describe in Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy? All relevant opinions? Why not describe them in the best way possible, not just what is absolutely necessary?--Raphael1 12:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't part of the other debates, but I can see why people would come to the conclusion that the visual presence of the 12 JP cartoons is necessary (for instance, in order to assess the arguments in any debate about how offensive or harmless they really are, or how they play with certain xenophobic stereotypes, or whatever else it is that people have discussed in this context, it is necessary to actually see them – at least some of them.) This has nothing to do with any question about how to best describe "opinions". As for opinions, yes, absolutely, they should be described in the best way possible. Describing them in well-written text is the best way. That's what an encyclopedia does. In any case, the comparison between the two works is beside the point. We have the JP cartoons because they are the subject of the article, which makes them an absolutely classic NFC case (just like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or V-J Day in Times Square). The corresponding article about the Controversy about the Al Ghad cartoon about Mohammed cartoons doesn't exist. Because, evidently, no such controversy existed. The cartoon is entirely non-notable. If you could write that redlinked article, and fill it with well-sourced material, then you would be welcome to use the image in it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think, that well-written text is the best way to describe opinions? Why do you think almost every newspaper prints cartoons? Because they are an artistic and often humorous way to describe widely held opinions while avoiding the disadvantages of language. Why not use a cartoon to describe a counter-opinion in the cartoon controversy? How could this not be the best way to describe this opinion in that matter? Here's how I see it: [3]--Raphael1 13:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your name looked familiar. There's still threads on your talk page from 3 years ago where you fought tooth and nail to delete or hide images from the Mohammad article, fork a non-image version, etc... Who do you wish to remove potentially offensive material on one hand, and then fight for the usage of another the next? Tarc (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can ask you the very same question. In fact I did here: [4] Who do you wish to remove potentially offensive material on one hand, and then fight for the usage of another the next? And btw I never filed an AfD on any of the images in Muhammad or speedy deleted any of those.--Raphael1 11:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, you can't ask me the same question, since I did weigh into this particular matter with a keep or a delete. And no, you didn't file an AfD, you just tried every other trick in the book, such as censored tags, javascript to hide it, and a no-image version. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I looked, the no-image version is still deleted, and I'd guess there are still a couple of indef blocks every month, because some editor had the firm believe, that removing a particular image (resp. moving it behind a like) improves the quality of Muhammad or similar articles. Are administrators still allowed to call those editors "crazy radicals"? Shouldn't we rather take Jimbo's advice? [5] --Raphael1 17:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is quite obvious from Raphael's comments that he sees this as a matter of POV balance – since he couldn't remove certain images he didn't like, he wishes to see a balance in the form of an image that promotes a POV he does like. But the POV's promoted or not promoted by these items, and their "offensiveness" or lack thereof, should of course be completely irrelevant here, which means we shouldn't even stoop to his level and try to refute him in these terms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is the POV promoted in this cartoon irrelevant, if I want to use it in the article Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy? --Raphael1 11:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Future Perfect nailed it. If we're not discussing the image in the article and instead merely using it to express an opinion, then there is no justification for using it. We can perfectly well cite the opinion that the newspaper was hypocritical using written sources. We tend not to illustrate opinions using cartoons. Making your own 'satirical' cartoons isn't going to help your case, Raphael. Fences&Windows 20:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we can as well write that opinion down, but I'd consider it added value to show a cartoon, which responds to the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Why don't you want to make the article even better? --Raphael1 11:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everyone agrees with the opinion of "more pictures == better", this has been a raging debate in non-free image topic area for ages. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say, that more pictures are necessarily better, but you have to agree, that this particular cartoon definitely adds value. (I esp. like the fact, that one can totally understand it with no arabic skills at all.) --Raphael1 17:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DRV is not DRV round 3. There must be closure at some point. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete I give as many reasons as Stifle: Zero --Raphael1 14:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have already had your !vote by nominating; please don't make a second one. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Keeani Lei – Decision endorsed. It appears that Шизомби is interpreting the letter, rather than the spirit, of "A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies," which effectively prohibits all "no consensus" closes if you go by the letter. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Keeani Lei (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I recommend overturning the AfD closure and deleting the article. As I have summed up at Talk:Keeani_Lei#Issues, there are no high quality, reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy about Keeani Lei. Per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, "Arguments that contradict policy" or "are based on opinion rather than fact" may be discounted and "compl[iance] with core content policies [...] cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." There was a rough consensus for deletion (given that the keep arguments contradicted policy and were based on opinion), and the article and information in it do not comply with policy. Closing Admin Stifle waived the DELREV discussion User_talk:Stifle/FAQs#I_disagree_with_your_AFD_closure. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - While I take the position that, unless the actual awards can be physically shoved into the Wikipedia article, they don't provide the written content needed to sustain the Wikipedia written article, others seem to think differently. Also,the keep-an-article-to-reward-trinket-collection appears in some policies and guidelines in a minor role. (e.g., Wikipedia:Notability: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.") The trinket view is a minor policy view, so it doesn't contradict policy. The deciding factor is that the closer seemed to give weight to the keep consensus regarding trinkets, so it is hard to say that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. Endorse as no consensus. Of course, that no consensus means you can immediately relist at AfD (once this DRV ends), if you want. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Core content policies require without exception that an article have "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" WP:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source, and that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" WP:V#Reliable_sources_and_notability. Core content policy further requires without exception that they be high quality ones for articles on living people. Even if we assume that there is a consensus to "keep-an-article-to-reward-trinket-collection" (though I don't see strong grounds for that assumption) there must be high quality, reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy regarding that trinket collection. AVN is the only source for the award and it is not a third-party source because AVN gave the award. Again, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS states "compl[iance] with core content policies [...] cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." Thus, even if we assume Lei is the recipient of both awards she is alleged to have received (even though there are no reliable third-party sources that say she was, and not even AVN says she was), and even if we assume PORNBIO is exempted from the WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, and even if we assume “passing PORNBIO” is conclusive proof that a subject should be included when the guideline explicitly states it “is not conclusive proof” (emphasis in original)... ultimately N, N (people), and PORNBIO are guidelines, not policies. An article cannot be kept because of a guideline/consensus/consensus about a guideline when it fails core content policies. I see no ambiguity here: the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly and was required to delete the article. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see the issue of WP:V wasn't bought up at the AFD, the closer certainly can't decide that though no one mentioned it, I'll add it in and choose to delete it. If it isn't in the debate it gives no one any chance to respond to the issue. I'd perhaps think it was debatable if it counted as third party, since it's clearly third party to the subject of the article, but that isn't what DRV is for, we aren't here to put forward those arguments that was what the xFD was for. Since it was no-consensus raising a new xFD to argue such a point would seem to most appropriate thing to do. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination noted "No significant reliable sourcing." The failure of GNG was cited, which has provisions for multiple secondary sources with editorial integrity "to allow verifiable evaluation of notability." The failure to meet BASIC was cited, which requires "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and I both brought up the fact that there is no reliable source that Keeani Lei was the recipient of the AVN Awards. WTFITS also observed the problem with two of the sources, though I suppose one could argue that editor did not explicitly state that as a problem of WP:V. No defense of the sources was offered. Even if these issues had not been brought up, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS requires that "A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies" (emphasis added). Stifle's closing of the article as "no consensus" means that he was unaware of that requirement, or that he came to the conclusion that the sources are high quality, reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I'm not sure what other possibilities there could be. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The closer has to work within the framework of the debate, if the community wanted differently, then they'd extend the WP:CSD criteria, so any admin could simply decide that and delete it, it's long established that is not what happens. If the closer saw something which wasn't covered by the debate the correct approach is to not close it, but to instead join the debate, otherwise they'd end up being bought here and it being a supervote suggested. Really I can't see arguing the toss about it here is providing anything useful when you can simply relist it for deletion and debate the points of WP:V there. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Renominate in 2 or 3 months I might agree with "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Шизомби at the AfD when they said the awards even if proven are not sufficiently important awards for notability . The question of whether the sources for even that was verifiable was discussed at the AfD , see the final !vote, by WTFITS. This should have been taken into account., and it wasn't. But to close as non-consensus was within discretion--as Stifle says in the close, it was borderline between that and delete, and in borderline cases we do not delete. Personally, I think we need a wider discussion of the criteria for the class of subjects; we may be accepting a level of notability considerably below what we expect for performers in general or other classes of people. But there's no point changing a non-consensus close to delete, when one can just renominate. I realize the first AfD closed in 2009 was a speedy keep, (the nomination was withdrawn), and this is technically a keep; I ordinarily do not like quickly repeated AfDs, but considering the rather ambiguous wording of Stifle's close, I think its appropriate, for there are signs that the consensus on these articles is changing. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse though delete could have been a reasonable outcome too. This is well within admin discretion as the letter of PORNBIO appears to be met, though the lack of detailed third-party sources and the group nature of the awards make it questionable. Hobit (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Well within discretion to keep such a stub. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble seeing exactly where administrators are given that discretion and could really use some help with that. As far as I can see, WP:V and WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS don't read, respectively, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia can still have an article on it" and "Wikipedia policy does not require that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are negotiable, and can be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus or by a closing admin. A closing admin must not determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must not be respected above individual opinions." :-/ Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we don't meet WP:V here? I'm seeing sources for the awards. I'd very much prefer not to have this bios for folks that are only there because of group awards, but that's best left for discussion at PORNBIO. If you can make a run at why you feel WP:V isn't met here, I'm game to listen, but I'm not seeing it. Hobit (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is not met. avnawards.avn.com is a reliable self-published primary source for the fact that Keeani Lei was one of six performers who were in the scene from "The Violation of Kylie Ireland" that was nominated (which was one of fifteen scenes nominated). There is no reliable source for Keeani Lei herself being a nominee for that award (if a source could be found that she was, she was one of about eighty "nominees" in the "Best All-Girl Group Sex Scene" category!). However, avnawards.avn.com is not a third-party source. A third party is "someone not directly involved in a transaction" (Wikt:third party) or "A party or person besides the two primarily concerned" (OED), in this case the awarding party and the receiving party are the two principals. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll disagree pretty strongly, I feel you misunderstand 3rd party in this context. The awards site is A) reliable and B) an independent third party source for information on the actress. WP:3PARTY is the relevant essay which states: "A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject". In any case, WP:V doesn't require third party sources, that's WP:N. WP:V "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Hobit (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V and WP:OR require that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources_and_notability, Wikipedia:OR#Sources, a fact that is noted in the essay to which you point. The awards site is reliable to the extent I noted above. The awards site is not an independent third party source. I guess one could argue that the essay doesn't really make it 100% clear whether by "subject" it means the subject of the article (Lei in this case) or the subject being covered (Lei being in a scene nominated for an award by AVN). The essay Wikipedia:Party and person makes the distinction clearer: "A third-party source is a source that isn't involved in the event. The third party is the neutral, outside observer." The essay WP:Independent sources states "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." 3PARTY also states "For other subjects, no third-party sources exist, because the only people who have published information are the people involved in it. Wikipedia should not have articles on any topic that third-party sources have never written about, or have published only trivial, routine, or passing mentions." AVN was involved in the information published, and their coverage is just a passing mention. If you want to argue that 3PARTY is really just 2PARTY and that the essay refers to the subject of the article, AVN's still really not "independent and unaffiliated," given that they gave her a nomination, which makes them "too close to the subject" and that essay also states "At least two third-party sources should cover the subject" and "These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance." There aren't multiple reliable third party sources and there aren't enough facts to write a non-stub article. It also states "Non-independent sources may not be used to establish notability." Thus, if AVN had given her a nomination (which it did not), that could not be used to establish notability. A third party would have had to report on the award, which, if the award were truly a notable one, would have happened. If, say, AVN had nominated Lei herself for two awards in two different years, and e.g. Playboy and the Las Vegas Weekly had both reported that, and there was enough written about her for more than a stub, this would be an entirely different situation. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain we can discuss this somewhere else, but for now let me just say I think your interpretation of "third party" is different than is normally used for WP:N. Hobit (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to, where at? However, I'm quite sure my description of "third party" is accurate, and if any other is being used, it is being used improperly and likely to Wikipedia's detriment. Not quite sure why you're bringing it back to WP:N again (which Lei fails completely), but regardless of how one defines "third party," WP:N states ""Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Multiple sources are generally expected." avnawards.avn.com is a single primary source for the AVN award nomination for the scene she was in. There doesn't seem to be a single secondary source for the nomination, much less multiple ones. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse own closure; it was right on the borderline but I think it was reasonable. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. While I respect the closer's careful approach, I believe that the close was flawed. I believe the closer should have given more weight to several arguments in favor of deletion, and less weight to certain keep positions.
    • WP:PORNBIO no longer enjoys community support. While there is no consensus as to how to revise it, there has clearly been steady erosion of whatever support it once had, as evidenced in many AFD discussions over the last year or so. Jimbo quite correctly described PORNBIO as "seriously misguided." [6] In this context, the !votes which simply called for the mechanical application of PORNBIO text should have been given reduced weight, and those which analyzed the issues under more general notability standards given greater weight.
    • As Sz argues cogently, we simply don't have independent, reliable sources that support the inference that individuals who appeared in scenes which won AVN Awards are in fact viewed as award recipients. I presented evidence, never refuted, that not even AVN takes that position (at best, it is inconsistent); and no one presented any independent, reliable sources ststing otherwise. We may have, say, independent, reliable sources that Song X won a Grammy Award. We may have independent, reliable sources that Guitarist G performed on Song X. But that doesn't establish that Guitarist G won a Grammy Award.
    • There have been several recent discussions, some general, some article-specific, over how to handle articles when, in the specific case, application of the GNG would present a different result than application of a specialized guideline. While I'm not sure a general consensus has yet been achieved, it is fair to say that, when entertainers/entertainment product is involved, the GNG has consistently been treated as overriding the specialized guideline, both as an inclusionary and exclusionary standard. This factor should have been more heavily weighted in the close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HW is right there is no generally accepted practice. I think the only practical way to view it is that they are the special rules are applicable rule in their domain, though the GNG would apply to other areas of notable for the same subject. If further limits in the special rules are desired, this would need to be stated in the rule, and I think in most cases some casesI there would be considerable opposition. The usual way we restrict notability further than the WP:N rules specify is by three other principles. First is the application of WP:NOT and other similar guidelines, like LOCAL and BLP. Second, we often interpret the specific meaning of "substantial coverage" and a "reliable source" a little differently depending on the subject. Third, there's the principle in WP:N that meeting WP:N does not mean an article must be written--there could be very good reasons to make something a combination article or a redirect. But since people disagree, In arguing at AfD , I usually try to show when I can that something does, or does not, satisfy both the specific guideline and the GNG. For porn stars, I think we are a little too inclusive, and I'd deal with it by saying that in this particular type of article, the GNG alone is insufficient (as I said, it might take quite an argument to convince everyone). DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've countered HW several times now, the performers of the AVN scene awards receive the physical awards, not the producers, director, or writers. I've attended the awards several times in person, and this is how it's done. Video evidence is available since the awards were broadcast on Showtime and Playboy TV in the past and is available on DVD. I'm not sure why HW wants an independent source to verify the practices of AVN since the most obvious evidence is produced by AVN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may have "countered" HW with your claim before, but have you presented a citation to one of those DVDs to back up your claim? Your own observations of the event itself are original research and your repeated presence at the show might suggest a possible COI. Transcribing a quote from a published recording to that effect or making an audio clip would help your case... somewhat. A DVD of the AVN Awards would be a primary source that is reliable (if in fact it explicitly states the performers are the nominees and not the scenes themselves). However, policy strictly requires much more than that for there to be an article. I tried looking for the kinds of sources needed and would have been happy to add them, but I couldn't find them. This particular performer at this time doesn't make the standards that WP requires. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not commenting on whether Keeani Lei is deserving of an article. I'm saying that the winners of the scene awards are the performers of the scene since they're the ones that receive and keep the trophies. Video evidence can be purchased at [7][8][9]. You can see evidence of the performers receiving the awards from the 1995 awards on youtube too.[10] Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That youtube compilation is, at best, double-edged; it shows that AVN treated the scene awards differently than the performer awards. For wards like "Best Actress," the performer's name comes first. For awards like "Best (whatever) Scene," the performers' names come last, after even the production company. The fact that performers from the winning scene come onstage can easily be seen as as much a matter of stagecraft for the ceremonies as anything else. After all, AVN itself lists "scene" awards in a different category from "performer" awards. Rather than interpreting the mixed signals that AVN may be sending ourselves, we should rely on how independent, reliable third-party sources characterize such awards (preferably sources not involved in the promotional aspects of the industry involved.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. The New York Times and Village Voice treats Tyla Winn as one of the winners of the multi-person scene award. This LGBT news website thinks Dylan Ryan is the nominee for the solo scene award. Newsreview seems to think Sasha Grey won the oral sex scene award. The Guardian treats scene awards as three of Belladonna's four awards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the YouTube video, I can see that despite listing the nominees' and winners' movie titles first, followed by the production company, finally followed by the performers, that two trophies were indeed handed to the two performers for the "Best Couples Sex Scene" AVN award. Related to that I wonder, strictly speaking, if the Academy Award for Best Picture is awarded not to the picture itself but to the producers who receive the award, or both, or if the producers collect the award on behalf of the film. Hmm. Anyway, if it's always been true for the group sex scenes at each AVN awards show that the performers are the actual recipients of the award and are not just collecting it, then using Template:Cite video for one of those DVDs (particularly with a quote or clip) would seem to make for a reliable primary source. If that is the case, it would seem to be acceptable as the source for that information in an article - provided that N and V have been met with secondary, third-party sources on other grounds already. I wonder how they handle delivering awards for scenes involving large numbers of performers, or scenes with unidentified performers.
I am not sure whether it is fair to require that an editor other than the one adding the claim should have to be the one to buy a copy of the primary source. Likewise, I am not sure how fair it is that a source be one that must be bought to view. WP:SOURCEACCESS does address this to a degree where it states "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material." A newspaper article behind a paywall can be acquired by other means, by using interlibrary loan. A print source in a university library could be visited by someone for free, or acquired by interlibrary loan. What of sources that can't be acquired by interlibrary loan, I wonder? But absent clarity on that point, that's admittedly a topic for further discussion elsewhere. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we accept paid sources, and always have. The question of the the burden depends on the rule WP:AGF. At least if experienced editors add them, we assume they are described and cited correctly unless there is some evidence to the contrary, as we do for everything said and done here.
I would think that in a scene involving a small number of actors, as seems from the article to be the case here, the scene being notable implies the principal actors are also--anything else is hairsplitting. Remember also the general rule that if in doubt, we keep the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has cited to the DVDs though, and they haven't released one for 2010 yet anyway AFAICT. PORNBIO doesn't say anything about implied or inherited notability. It states "Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years" not "Has received nominations for, or been in scenes or movies which received nominations for, well-known awards in multiple years" so I don't see how it's hairsplitting. WP:N states there must be "significant coverage," that there be "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." She's one of several performers listed after one of several movies in one of many categories, and neither the scene nor her are addressed directly in detail. If she is somehow notable for her participation in that one scene, that one event, the relevant guideline there would seem to be WP:ONEEVENT, that "the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." However, even if the performers were inarguably the recipients, and even if the primary source inarguably gave the performers' participation in the scene/awards show significant coverage, the WP:V rule is "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:N's rule is "'Sources,' for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." There are none, so there is no doubt, so the "general rule that if in doubt, we keep the article" doesn't come into play. But remind me where that "if in doubt, keep" rule appears, if you would? I don't recall. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I would have closed this as a delete, but no consensus was well within Stifle's discretion. Courcelles 06:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_February_12&oldid=1072169022"