Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capri Anderson (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. The real argument is this: is the individual notable enough on their own - after all, notability is not inherited. WP:PORNBIO does not appear to enhance the normal notability guidelines - in some ways is actually contradictroy - the most restrictive must win. Her relationship with a "star" does not allow her to inherit notability from him, nor does redirecting to his article make sense as it's a mere speck on his overall life/career as per the arguments. As such, the arguments below lead to a consensus to delete. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capri Anderson

edit
AfDs for this article:
Capri Anderson (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)

This was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capri Anderson at the time of the incident with Charlie Sheen as a BLP1E and this was endorsed at DRV. For some reason this was unsalted last month and recreated on the basis of a notability guideline (PORNBIO) that is depreciated and no longer reflective of the community's view on BLP content. Being nominated for AVNs isn;r the same as having in depth mainstream coverage and what there is is fairly negative and reflects one event. On this basis there is no justification for an article under BLP1E which has precedence over PORNBIO as there are not the sources to show the AVN nominations are independantly notable events. Spartaz Humbug! 18:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, given her multiple AVN nominations, spread over multiple years (2011-2012), and the Sheen scandal she passes the notability criteria. – fdewaele, 13 April 2012, 14:15 (CET).
  • Delete contains speculative statements which could lead to a lawsuit. WP:PORNBIO arguments not relevent as per nominator's arguements. BO; talk 19:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect as a BLP1E who shouldn't have an article in her own right. She may well meet WP:PORNBIO, but to me that's just further evidence that PORNBIO is a bad notability guideline which shouldn't be followed. Robofish (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep almost a borderline bad faith nominations, especially when considering the publicity from the charlie sheen incident which was widely covered. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: the pornbio stuff (alleged notability because of industry award nominations) is irrelevant, and as several others have said, the wording in PORNBIO simply doesn't reflect current project-wide standards. If it's not formally deprecated yet, let's deprecate it here and now, by demonstrating how we ignore it. For everything else in the article, the WP:BLP1E-based decision of the old AfD still applies. Thus no reason to revise the old decision. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect:small merge with Charlie Sheen if required as per HWolf. - Youreallycan 09:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Sheen incident fails WP:BLP1E (and is not mentioned at Charlie Sheen, so a redirect there would not be helpful). The porn award nominations do not convey notability, and the WP:PORNBIO guideline is too disputed to reflect community consensus. Nothing else appears to make the subject notable.  Sandstein  10:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP is NOT TABLOID. As mentioned, PORNBIO is only as deprecated as we want to consider it deprecated, and I think the consensus is that it is indeed much too lax. We need not wait for a formal rule, because we make the guidelines by what we do here. When we come to revise it, what wit will say will then describe what we do. Many of our guidelines are informal guidelines because it is easier to reach majority agreement on individual cases than get the supermajority to revise the wording of a rule. I would be very reluctant to make even the redirect. DGG ( talk ) 15:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why this AfD is still even open considering it's been over two weeks, but at any rate, I've noticed that most of the people !voting "delete" are the same people that !voted that way in previous pornography-related AfDs by me; that, or were against having WP:PORNBIO at all. How about hearing some outside points of view? (And despite what those !voters may want to interpret things, not having consensus on how to change a guideline doesn't mean to ignore or delete it. When an AfD, for example, is closed as "no consensus", it still exists, doesn't it?) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:32, 28 April 2012 (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/Capri_Anderson_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1077430956"