Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lana Rhoades

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Okay, this has been open for over a month and there's no consensus either way, so we default to keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lana Rhoades

[edit]
Draft:Lana Rhoades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Lana Rhoades

This draft was submitted and rejected in February 2021, and has been resubmitted without explanation or discussion. (There have been changes, but the nature of rejection is and should be such that an editor should not simply modify and resubmit a draft after rejection.) The draft was rejected because articles about the subject have been created and deleted three times, most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades (4th nomination). The title Lana Rhoades was cut down to a redirect, and was salted. It appears that the salting in article space has expired (possibly due to an error in entering the date by the salting admin).

The subject is a pornographic actress who appears to have a cult following of ultras. Any effort to create an article (after three deletions and one Deletion Review) should be via another Deletion Review, not by disruptive resubmission.

Recommend that this draft be deleted from draft space, and ECP create-protected in draft space, and that the redirect be ECP-protected in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, "and has been resubmitted without explanation or discussion" is incorrect. Please see the comment I left on the draft. I'll repost it here. I added sourcing that did not exist at the time of the AFDs nor the last submission more than half a year ago. I do not appreciate the accusation of disruptive resubmission. I could have just moved the draft to mainspace. Mbdfar (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Robert McClenon:, I don't understand why my submission incorporating new WP:RSP, with the aim of improving the article and making it pass WP:GNG, was deemed contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Last submission was over 6 months ago, it's not like I'm spamming entries. I commented my rationale on the page. Legitimately believe this version of the draft is worthy of a non-biased review. Mbdfar (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment on the merits of the draft but the mere fact something has been deleted at AfD a few times doesn't automatically make working on a draft inappropriate, or even recreating the article, and there's no requirement to go to DRV (which would probably ask to see a draft version anyway). The draft author did also make some improvements before resubmitting it. Hut 8.5 12:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades (4th nomination). Advise the proponent of WP:DUD, and that few in the WP:AfC WikiProject are supportive of recreation of multiply deleted old topic, unless the advice at WP:THREE is followed. Also note that WP:PORNBIO topics are tolerated much less than once before. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SmokeyJoe:; Thanks for the WP:DUD link, that is the exact reason why I decided to re-edit and resubmit 6 months later. For what it's worth, this is only the second time this draft has been submitted for review. Again, thanks for the link to WP:THREE, but I did add "two or three" more WP:RS before resubmission. Also, the last AFD was over a year ago. This is a public figure, things change in that timeframe. I want to know why me changing things and submitting it (6 months later!) is considered disruptive.
    • But this discussion isn't whether or not to accept the draft. If the reviewer doesn't think it's ready for namespace, fine! That's why I'm going through the motions and not just moving the page now, because I believe in the process. But why delete? This isn't a copyright vio, promotional, or anything else. It would simply be a case of WP:TOO SOON. If that's what the reviewer thinks, ok cool, I'll try again in another half year. Again, I'm not spamming submit, I'm not resubmitting the same version of the draft over and over. Deleting doesn't help anything, just say no for now. Mbdfar (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The draft had been Rejected and not declined. Rejection is intended to be final, and the submitter is not invited to resubmit a rejected draft. That doesn't prevent submitters from resubmitting rejected drafts, but it is not supposed to be done. In this case I had rejected the draft precisely because articles on Lana Rhoades had already been deleted by the community three times, and I will not accept a draft on a topic where the community has already discussed the notability of the subject. We can assume that another article would be deleted a fourth time. That is why I had rejected the draft rather than declining it, and a rejected draft simply should not be resubmitted. Resubmission of a rejected draft is very seldom done in good faith.
  • However, after reviewing the history, and User:Mbdfar's statement here, I think that this is a rare case where a rejected article is being resubmitted in good faith. When I reject a draft, I normally add a templated warning saying that if the draft is resubmitted, it may be nominated for deletion, or a topic-ban may even be requested. I forgot to provide that warning this time. Other reviewers do not always do that, and such a warning should not be needed, but the author had not been specifically told not to resubmit the draft. Also, I see that the author wishes to rely on new material to establish general notability. The way to do that after there has been a deletion discussion is not simply to submit or resubmit a draft. After a deletion, the author should request Deletion Review and should cite new material that may establish general notability. (General notability may be the only guideline that now applies to pornographic performers.)
  • If User:Mbdfar wishes to request Deletion Review on account of new material being available to support general notability, then I suggest that this MFD be relisted or otherwise kept open for an additional week, which is the time that a Deletion Review is normally open.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Robert McClenon:; I appreciate the lengthy reply. I was not aware of the distinction between 'rejected' and 'declined' - I wonder if it's possible to remove the 'submit' button from 'rejected' drafts to prevent this confusion in the future. For what it's worth, your original post on my talk page after the February rejection did state "...please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page which criterion is met, and resubmit." It did have your warning at the bottom, but it was contradictory with the first half of the post. This was evidently confusing and should be considered in the future.
    • I will likely open a deletion review once I look over the policy. Regardless, I still don't see the benefit of deleting the draft in it's current state. Would you consider placing the warning template on the draft and leaving it? I wouldn't resubmit it again, I just think the draft is well sourced and formatted, and would be a good jumping off point for future editors once notability is established. And for the record, I'm not an ultra. That was unnecessary. Thanks. Mbdfar (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Mbdfar - If you request Deletion Review, then, as noted, this MFD should be relisted or otherwise kept open while the DRV is in progress. If Deletion Review is not requested, and the three previous deletions of Lana Rhoades are allowed to stand, then the draft will serve no useful purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Mbdfar - I will take your word that you are not an ultra. Some editors, including some of those who push for the inclusion of deleted articles, are ultras; and the essay on ultras does state that they are good-faith editors who simply are very enthusiastic about a particular topic, team, or person. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Robert McClenon:; "[if] the three previous deletions of Lana Rhoades are allowed to stand, then the draft will serve no useful purpose." - then why wasn't the draft put up for MfD in February? If you saw no chance of accepting this article through AfC, as you made it seem above, what was the purpose of leaving the draft initially? And why are things different now? Mbdfar (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per prior article deletion discussions. No point in maintaining a draft on a nn subject, whose lack of notability has been recently (2020) determined by consensus. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Mbdfar - You haven't yet requested Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Robert McClenon: - And you haven't answered my above question. Mbdfar (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Mbdfar - The reason why I nominated the draft for deletion in September 2021 and not any of the previous times that it was submitted is just as I explained, which is that in September you resubmitted the draft after it had been Rejected. The Rejection of a draft is not the same as a decline, and Reject does not mean, "Resubmit when you feel like it", or "Resubmit after improvements". Rejection means, "Do not resubmit". And you resubmitted it anyway. You can see that some of the previous submissions had been declined and some had been rejected. If you didn't know that there is a difference, you should have asked, because you should have read the different messages. You resubmitted a Rejected draft, and I nominated it for deletion. That is an answer to your question. As I explained, you should have requested Deletion Review rather than resubmitting after rejection, and you still can request Deletion Review rather than using MFD to argue about adding sources. The fact is that you resubmitted a rejected draft, and that is a form of disruption that is usually dealt with by deleting the draft that should not have been resubmitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree with Robert referring you to Deletion Review post rejection. DRV is NOT a standard appeal route for AfC rejection. Unless you have a WP:COI with the article, the proper referral is to WP:DUD. You can take the line that all of the AfC reviewers have got it wrong. Mainspace it yourself, and follow it to AfD.
        After mainspacing the improved draft, DRV is for contenting a possible WP:CSD#G4 deletion, or if you have an actual problem with the AfD deletion. Be aware that prior REJECTION at AfC is a bad sign for AfD, but this is the path available, and then AfD deletion has more finality than AfD Rejection. AfD acceptance, even "no consensus", makes the AfC reviews moot.
        If you have a WP:COI with the article, you should just give up. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Robert McClenon:; that actually does not answer my question. Perhaps @SmokeyJoe: can provide more insight. I'm more concerned about the fundamentals of rejecting a draft. If I may highlight the question again, If you saw no chance of accepting this article through AfC, as you made it seem above, what was the purpose of leaving the draft initially? In other words, why wasn't the draft put up for MfD in February? No matter what sources I actually added, we'd be here regardless, correct? What, in your opinion, is the value in leaving a draft that can't be resubmitted? Mbdfar (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          User:Mbdfar, are you asking about the history of declines before rejection? Previous declines may give reviewers more confidence that the draft has no hope.
          Drafts only get put up for deletion at MfD if there is contention between submitters and reviewers. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          User:SmokeyJoe, not really. I guess I just don't understand why rejection is an option at all. If a reviewer thinks that the draft has no hope, why not go straight to MfD instead of rejection? Again, what is the value in leaving a rejected draft that can't be resubmitted? Mbdfar (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          User:Mbdfar the purpose of leaving the rejected draft undeleted is so that the author can, at their leisure, read the reasons for rejection. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - I have no objection to a Relist, but this MFD has already been open for 10 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to pointless, comment-free relists. They do little more than shuffle the MfD list order, and in fact hide the old age of the discussion. Old discussions get more prominence by being old in the backlog. A meaningful relist comment will note something that wasn't known to earlier participants, or will offer some wise refocusing advice. The relist template tends to give extra weight to new !votes that follow it, so the relisting comment really needs to have some merit. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I do see enough of a good faith improvement effort to give this draft the benefit of a doubt. That said, User:Mbdfar, I am unimpressed by the new citations and remain unconvinced this person is notable. Low-quality English-language sources are not an improvement over foreign language sources. WP:SIGCOV by reliable secondary sources remains the key problem, but I am also not convinced of the need to nuke the draft, instead of letting the draft process run its course. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gene93k:; "Low-quality English-language sources are not an improvement over foreign language sources." I agree. However, the non-English sources were largely ignored in the previous AfDs, therefore making me believe either they were not sufficient to increase notability or people were not willing to consider them. I thought the new, multi-page Playboy article (a WP:RS) and the mention in the Wall Street Journal were very high quality. I believe those, supported by the large number of non-English sources (which do seem to be reliable) and souces found in the previous version of the draft, brought the article over the cusp of acceptability. Mbdfar (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This ship has sailed, the citations are the same low-brow AVN, XBIZ, pornhub "awards" and the like that have been dismissed in several past discussions. Barring a notable event in the subject's life that sees coverage in legitimate sources, there is really nothing to discuss about this woman. Zaathras (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Zaathras, I have edited the draft to remove "low-brow AVN, XBIZ, pornhub "awards" and the like" citations that have been dismissed in the past discussions. I would be interested to hear your opinion of some of the remaining references. Mbdfar (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There have been new sources published since the AfD. If those new sources do not establish notability, I can understand an immediate rejection and an MfD after resubmission. But I would like to have seen at least some reviewing of the new sources that were added during the AfC process. Notability can change over time and implicitly calling an editor who has been active since 2018 (and has had an account since 2008) an "ultra" is illogical given they're making a good-faith effort on this draft. ECP isn't warranted here since ECP is a preventative measure and ECP would not have prevented this editor from creating the draft, given that they have been extended confirmed since 2019.
This is tangential, but it seems like in a lot of cases repeated submission by so-called "ultras" tends to poison the well at AfC for subjects that would've otherwise been accepted as notable. The repeated submission while non-notable and an early consensus judging such prevents a honest re-evaluation of the subject's notability if or when it actually becomes notable. A vicious cycle can develop, as the judgements of "non-notability" are themselves based on earlier judgements of non-notability. That appears to be what is happening here, and while I'm not saying that Lana Rhoades is notable, I think shutting down ANY re-evaluation of notability is counterproductive and deletion at this MfD would be that. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really about Lana Rhoades but about procedures
[edit]
  • First, User:Mbdfar asks why this draft was not previously nominated for deletion, and what is the purpose of rejecting drafts rather than of immediately nominating them for miscellany for deletion. One of the main reasons is to avoid clogging up MFD with large numbers of worthless drafts. Rejected drafts will be deleted in six months as G13 if the author leaves them alone.
  • Second, User:SmokeyJoe refers to the option of moving or copying the draft into article space. I will point out that an article with a title that has been deleted repeatedly will almost certainly be tagged for G4 deletion as previously deleted. The New Page Reviewer who tags it for deletion does not have access to the previous article, but knows that many re-creations of previously deleted articles need deleting again. I was recommending Deletion Review not as an appeal from the rejection of the draft, but as an appeal from the deletion of the previous article.
  • Third, User:SmokeyJoe says that DRV is not a standard appeal route for rejected drafts. That statement is true; there is no standard appeal route for rejected drafts. I am willing to consider defining a standard appeal route. Is SmokeyJoe making a recommendation?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • The author *may* move it themself, if they don't have a COI. They take it upon themself that they are not being disruptive, and genuinely believe that new information has overcome the old AfDs. They should take it very seriously that AfC reveiwers do not agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a previously AfD-deleted topic, for an AfC-REJECTED topic, there is no standard route of appeal. It is deleted. It is rejected. Move on. If, however, you think everyone else has it wrong, I would point to WP:THREE for making your case. Do not try to further waste peoples' time with endless more references for careful analysis for independence, reliability, depth of comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      At User talk:SmokeyJoe#Advice, I have responded to User:Mbdfar's WP:THREE sources, and assessed all three as "no", non-independent, all three are entirely derived directly from the subject. #1 and #2 are also blatant promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2021 (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 page'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:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Lana_Rhoades&oldid=1050143438"