Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simony Diamond
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Reliable sources have not been presented, and no arguments have notability have been made. Even WP:PORNBIO says "this number is big is invalid criteria for notability." --Wafulz 20:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Simony Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Not notable. She has appeared in around 168 porn movies but using the number of films that a porn star has starred in to determine notability is very controversial. Epbr123 02:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looking at WP:PORNBIO, she doesn't seem to be notable. --Dennisthe2 03:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — No proof of notability. Philippe Beaudette 04:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete wow lot of porn on here today. is it cos its friday?--Zedco 10:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 168 films, per IMDB. Clearly notable. Also, this article has been around since September, 2005. It's the AfDs that are showing up, not the "porn." And, incidentally, an article on a pornographic actress is no more "porn" than an "I don't like it" argument is a valid reason to delete. Dekkappai 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep while using the number of movies may be controversial when it's a relatively low number, this actress far exceeds the number of movies needed for notability. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Number of films in a genre can contribute to a porn star's prolificness, and certainly more so than the Google test, which on its own is unquestionably invalid, but it does speak to both the size of an entertainer's fanbase/following (see WP:BIO) and the prolificness of their work and can be used in conjunction with more valid criteria of either WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO to make a determination of whether they have a significant following and/or are prolific in any genre. This actress doesn't even seem to be prolific in porn in general, or anything else for that matter. I can't find anything about this actress other than her IMDB (and similar) profiles and some minor mentions/inclusions on spammish porn sites. She doesn't even have a website of her own. While even that is not an immediate grounds for inclusion/exclusion, again, it is a piece of evidence that needs to be looked at as a part of a whole. All of the sources in this article are IMDB (or similar) and while such sites may be used as sources in conjunction with other reliable sources, including the actress' own website, if she has one, as this is an article about a person and would be considered a primary source provided the information is neutral, and preferably at least one third-party reliable source, IMDB-ish sites alone are not acceptable as reliable sources. Epbr123 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Copy-pasting my EXACT wording from a different case, is not going to help your case. I make a good faith effort to expand upon and/or confirm the notability of EACH of the articles that I vote on in ANY AfD, especially in cases where it could go either way. This was one that I'd overlooked until your plagiarism was brought to my attention, so now I shall see what I can find about this one. From now on, please at least form an original argument instead of spamming AfDs with someone else's words. LaMenta3 22:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have significantly cleaned up this article, and referenced it some, but I'll abstain from voting in this AfD because any vote may give an appearance of impropriety based on the above conversation. All contributors who either return to or add to this discussion, please review my changes and make improvements as you can before voting. LaMenta3 00:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my honest opinion, a set of database entries and an appearance in a porn magazine doesn't prove her notability or provide reliable sources. Epbr123 01:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have significantly cleaned up this article, and referenced it some, but I'll abstain from voting in this AfD because any vote may give an appearance of impropriety based on the above conversation. All contributors who either return to or add to this discussion, please review my changes and make improvements as you can before voting. LaMenta3 00:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Copy-pasting my EXACT wording from a different case, is not going to help your case. I make a good faith effort to expand upon and/or confirm the notability of EACH of the articles that I vote on in ANY AfD, especially in cases where it could go either way. This was one that I'd overlooked until your plagiarism was brought to my attention, so now I shall see what I can find about this one. From now on, please at least form an original argument instead of spamming AfDs with someone else's words. LaMenta3 22:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Number of films in a genre can contribute to a porn star's prolificness, and certainly more so than the Google test, which on its own is unquestionably invalid, but it does speak to both the size of an entertainer's fanbase/following (see WP:BIO) and the prolificness of their work and can be used in conjunction with more valid criteria of either WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO to make a determination of whether they have a significant following and/or are prolific in any genre. This actress doesn't even seem to be prolific in porn in general, or anything else for that matter. I can't find anything about this actress other than her IMDB (and similar) profiles and some minor mentions/inclusions on spammish porn sites. She doesn't even have a website of her own. While even that is not an immediate grounds for inclusion/exclusion, again, it is a piece of evidence that needs to be looked at as a part of a whole. All of the sources in this article are IMDB (or similar) and while such sites may be used as sources in conjunction with other reliable sources, including the actress' own website, if she has one, as this is an article about a person and would be considered a primary source provided the information is neutral, and preferably at least one third-party reliable source, IMDB-ish sites alone are not acceptable as reliable sources. Epbr123 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note the nominator has significantly edited his original nominating statement. Dekkappai 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Disavian. Olessi 04:34, 24 March 2007 (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.