Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devon (actress) (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Subtropical-man (talk | contribs) at 15:16, 5 December 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Devon (actress)

Devon (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This was kept almost 4 years ago based on arguments that no longer have the same value since pornbio has been discarded. What we have here is possibly one page in a book that the reference is more of the then boyfriend then her. Then there is a film review so that’s about the film and not her. Then a couple of interviews as part of the usual porn industry noise so not really anything we can use to determine notability. In short fails GNG and ENT. Another redirect to AVN HOF after deletion seems appropriate. Spartaz Humbug! 21:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I quote: Another redirect to AVN HOF after deletion seems appropriate" - this is the worst possibility. By what right do you want to create redirect from living person to an article about award? AVN HOF is just one of the awards gained by Devon. Create redirect from living person to an article about award of AVN HOF is totally senseless, ridiculous and without any common sense. Either keep artcile or delete article, you have no right to create absurdal and pointless redirects. Subtropical-man ( | en-2) 02:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Probably keep. Crazy, but role in Pirates counts as a WP:NACTOR-notable film, and being a Penthouse Pet ought to be enough to claim multiple notable productions. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Not only is your argument opinion without policy basis but you fail to address the lackmof sources. Penthouse has long not been a basis on which to keep unsourced blps. Spartaz Humbug! 09:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable film role as well as a being a well known pinup girl featured in nation publications meet requirements.Super (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Another policy based opinion that does not address the gng deficiency. HOTTIE has been depreceated even longer than PORNBIO Spartaz Humbug! 09:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Per
      she has met the criteria for Pirates alone as its a well known unique, very notable film. She has also been inducted in to the AV Hall of Fame. Is this AfD because its pornography related? If so a good explanation as to why av stars should be treated no different then any other profession can be found in the first AfD in a comment by User:Subtropical-manSuper (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Which policy is tohat under. Aside from the fact that your comment makes no sense and that subtropical man’s contribution or porn afds were charactarised by ridiculous assertions of notability, lets address your assertions in details. Do you have a source to show her contribution to the film was significant and that it was unique? Regardless of that its not a policy based reason to keep as Pornbio has been removed. Ditto HoF not longer counts due to pornbio being removed. Ad hom claims just demonstrate you have no proper basis to argue keep. Av stars get treated the same as other entertainers. Do you have any sources at all please? Spartaz Humbug! 22:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable film role + the most important award in the porn industry ("Porn Oscars"). However, I would ask you not to ping me on similar topics. I abandoned pornography topic few years ago because there are several users on Wikipedia, who decided to fight pornography in Wikipedia. A perfect example is nominator - User:Spartaz, responsible for removing hundreds of articles in pornographic topic. According to his assumptions, ~99% of pornographic articles are to be removed. My question is - instead of this - isn't it better to block abuses of these few users like Spartaz from Wikipedia (there is an appropriate tool: topic ban for uses AfD pages) and save/rescue thousands of articles in Wikipedia? I think this is worth discussing so that the user is no longer allowed to abuse templates for removal. His war with pornography in Wikipedia and his extremely extreme deletionism should end. Actions by user:Spartaz are so destructive that it's hard to believe that blocking this one user will save/rescue thousands of Wikipedia articles. Subtropical-man ( | en-2) 23:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Firstly note this user was pinged so is a canvassed vote. Secondly, subtropical, eithee retract your sttements about me or I'll report you to ANI for a personal attack / poisoning of the well. Your choice. Spartaz Humbug! 12:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I did not notice any personal attacks and I had no intention of attacking any person as such, I want only presenting the problem. Nevertheless, I have tweaked the text to be less possessive. My current comment above is not a personal attack. Includes my vote on the AfD and my opinion about large problem on the English Wikipedia associated with the nominated article and the AfD generally. I proposed a solution to the problem, to be able to save/rescue hundreds of articles. The above comment complies with Wikipedia rules, not describe the user as such, not use profanity, it merely represents destructive user' behavior - and that is allowed. You don't even have a basis to create a thread for ANI, because you think that if someone describes your behavior, you perceive it as a personal attack. We can describe actions by other users, it is completely in line with Wikipedia rules, because this is what reporting irregularities about user. I believe that my above comment can be pasted directly (by copy/paste method) into ANI in new case/report about "AfD' topic ban" for you and will not be treated as a personal attack by other users. @Supercopone:, as you can see - please do not ping me on such matters (pornography topic and AfD) because my vote will do nothing, the problem is much bigger and I can see only one solution - thematic restriction (topic ban) for a few users who abuse the AfD templates and pages. If you have another idea to solve this big problem, feel free to write. Subtropical-man ( | en-2) 14:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete "Pirates" the film being notable does not transfer notability onto the performers. They have to stand on their own, and this one does not. Awards & noms are irrelevant, as established in wp:pornbio deprecation. The usual AVN, XBIZ, and porn dvd listings are irrelevant. Interviews are primary, used to support stated facts in an article, not build notability. Would also note that the extreme hostility shown by this subtropical guy should see their "vote" stricken and possibly an escalation into a filing to have their behavior examined. Zaathras (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href=";oldid=1058776300">here</a> and attribution parties <a href=";action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>