Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unscintillating (talk | contribs) at 23:30, 3 September 2016 (→Nicole Aniston: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:30, 3 September 2016 by Unscintillating (talk | contribs) (→Nicole Aniston: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Nicole Aniston

AfDs for this article:
Nicole Aniston (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)

Subject fails PORNBIO due to lack of significant awards; only nominations are present. No significant RS coverage can be found to meet GNG. Previous AfD closed as keep, but sourcing is still unconvincing. As an alternative to deletion, the article can be redirected (after delete) to List of Penthouse Pets. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Previous AfD did not include a discussion of sources, for example:
  • Keep "Looks to meet WP:GNG for her industry coverage (no pun intended)" (link to Google search)
  • Keep "Nom did not present a reason for deletion"
  • Keep "Trolling by the nominator"
  • Keep "per X & Y"
  • Keep "looks to pass GNG", etc.
Thus, the first AfD did not introduce any new sources or offer convincing arguments, just opinions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Winning an award is not the sole criteria for notability. 2,557 page views per day on Misplaced Pages is very impressive. She is a very popular Performer.

She’s very popular on social media. 273 thousand followers on Twitter. Over 100 thousand followers on Instagram. Over 100 thousand Likes on FaceBook. Glenn Francis (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not a convincing argument and does not address WP:BLP requirements for high quality sources, to wit: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons...such material...must adhere...strictly to this policy, and to Misplaced Pages's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)...be very firm about the use of high-quality sources " (the underline is mine).
Page views are not even considered in any content policies or notability guidelines (per WP:GNG). Asserting she is a popular performer generally or on social media without reliable sources is a POV statement. Twitter is not considered a reliable source per WP:RS (lacks independent reporting standards). Instagram is not considered a reliable source (lacks independent reporting standards), and Facebook is not considered a reliable source (lacks independent reporting standards). To satisfy the requirements for BLP, the subject must have acceptable reliable sourcing RS that bring it to GNG or BIO standards. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per above two comments. 173.70.163.96 (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete the arguments for keep are very unconvincing and do not address BLP requirements for high quality sources. The arguments for keep in the last Afd are also very unconvincing. One editor in the last AfD claims "While nice, non-industry coverage is not a policy nor a guideline." in fact it is very much connected to policy and guidelines because "non-industry coverage" translates into independent coverage which is a requirement for BLP in that it must satisfy GNG or even BIO. The same editor continues with. "It is reasonable that she would receive coverage in and for the industry for which she works". I agree that it is reasonable in the sense of the word, but not reasonable when using this coverage for indicating notability. This person then finishes with "PORNBIO does not supersede the GNG." I believe that is the only correct portion of this particular Ivote.
Another Ivoter in the former AfD said, "Sufficient sources suggests she meets the WP:GNG." Well this actually seems to be a misreading of GNG. It is the type of sources that determine the subject passing GNG. In this case, the sources do not suggest or indicate meeting GNG. Industry related promotional materials are not independent of the subject. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are what is needed. As an aside, she also fails PORNBIO because she has received only nominations. So, there is no way to establish notability for this person. Redirect after delete is acceptable to me. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete She has won no significant awards. There is no significant coverage of her in reliable, independent sources. Neither x number of page views nor x number of social media followers confers notability, and such arguments are based neither in policies nor in guidelines. If those numbers are so impressive (which they aren't), then reliable independent sources would have been so impressed that they would have devoted significant coverage to her (which they haven't). Cullen Let's discuss it 06:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Right, since notability is never conferred and nothing in policies or guidelines says otherwise.  However, evidence of attention to the topic over a period of time contributes to establishing that a topic is "worthy of notice" as per the lede and nutshell of WP:N.  It is a fallacy to assert what independent reliable sources will do, since they may or may not take an interest in specific data.  I'm not saying that page views and followers do or do not contribute to notability, but the evidence can be considered on its merits. 

    Nor is there a requirement for the world at large to notice topics in prose.  An example is Barber Island.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Multiple Penthouse covers plus the Pet of the Year (not just the month, that would be nothing special), top 5 in an independent pornstar ranking, unique feature as one of only two exclusive contract performers of Naughty America, a big company, in over 10 years. Contract performers are seen as the big queens in the porn industry who have reached it all. (At the same time they are rather rarely getting awards because of their advantage to only shoot e. g. 10-20 films a year and their comfort not to do extreme stuff like others). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with SamWinchester000's excellent explanation for keeping this article.Glenn Francis (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Which sources demonstrate that the subject meets GNG? The fact that Ms Aniston appeared in a magazine is not sufficient; they coverage needs to be about her. I'm not seeing such sources in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston (2nd nomination) Add topic