Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Calvert (actress) (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:59, 21 October 2020

Casey Calvert (actress)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last time this was discussed there was no consensus due to pornbio which the community has now depreceated. The sourcing is still primary and the article has not improved since the last discussion. Fails GNG, ENT and, as. a BLP deserves better Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - She's written about in The Guardian[1], The Telegraph[2], Vice[3], Buzzfeed News[4]. She passes the GNG. Rolling Stone calls her one of the industry's top names which is evidence of WP:ENT.[5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidthoughts Consider adding the Vice and Rolling Stone citations to the article. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbidthoughts and Ad Meliora: This is now

Done. Please compare before to after the research project with material from additional sources. Thank you for your research and helpful suggestions. Right cite (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a great job, Right cite Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbidthoughts:, thank you, that means a lot! Right cite (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the sources provided by Morbidthoughts. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the depreciated WP:PORNBIO guideline. The sources put forth here in the AfD are not great and the Rolling Stone source is definitely trivial. Lightburst (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actors and media personalities can be considered WP:N based on more relaxed guidelines than GNG. An exclusive interview in WP:RS is analogous to a profile in RS. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 21:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Revisiting the sources, I'd have to agree with Morbidthoughts that she passes WP:GNG. Four WP:RS have been cited, and at least three of those are very solid and substantial.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:GNG isn't trumped by more specific guidelines; the latter exist as rules-of-thumb, but when push comes to shove a subsidiary guideline that includes material GNG would exclude is necessarily suspect. In any case the implication here is that the subject is not significantly notable. Mangoe (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG and I don't think an interview counts as a RS because unless I'm remembering wrong interviews are considered primary sources. Whatever a sub guideline might say. Although, I do think they can better to use then the GNG in some cases, just not this one. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Direct transcripts of interviews are indeed primary sources. However, a reporter interviewing the subject for quotes to develop an article is still secondary coverage. For more information, see WP:INTERVIEW. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERVIEW says "commentary added to interviews by a publication can sometimes count as secondary-source material." Personally, I'm not really generally sure what the "sometimes" refers to or where the line is. Except for feeling like the source in question isn't a RS. WP:INTERVIEW is an essay though, and therefore has no bearing in AfDs. I do know WP:OR has a mention of interviews being primary sources in the notes section, but it's not in the body of the guideline and doesn't say if it's only applicable to transcripts of interviews. That said, I would think straight transcripts of interviews are extremely rare. At least in print news sources. So, I find it hard to believe that would be standard. Also, from what I've seen in AfDs it's definitely the consensus that interviews are not RSs and no one every makes the distinction between direct transcripts and interviews that aren't. So, I'd like to see somewhere the difference is talked about or something. Maybe someone can enlighten me to what the "sometimes" in WP:INTERVIEW is referring to also. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The principle of WP:OR applies to factual information, not notability. The fact that someone has an interview published in a major WP:RS makes them notable. But should we take every piece of information provided in the interview as fact? Of course not! — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I mostly mentioned it in relation to trying to find something about interviews in an actual guideline instead of essay, and that's all I was able to find. I'm not saying it's uber related to this though. Really, I'm just surprised interviews are really only talked about in an essay. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the substantive, independent reliable sourcing is not there to show that this pornographic performer is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, additional sources include: Pornography Feminism: As Powerful as She Wants to Be (2015); Coming Out Like a Porn Star: Essays on Pornography, Protection, and Privacy (2015); and William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice -- as well as The Guardian[6], The Telegraph[7], Vice[8], Buzzfeed News[9], as already noted by Morbidthoughts, above. Right cite (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Right cite (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently did a research initiative at this article topic, taking it from before to after the research project with material from additional sources. I added in info that was previously not there, about her work as a film director. Casey Calvert is extensively discussed at length in the book, Coming Out Like a Porn Star: Essays on Pornography, Protection, and Privacy (2015). Right cite (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this this has been listed at ARS. I have already made a private bet t o myself ho w many keep votes that generates. I'll let you know after this closes how acc urate my guess was. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casting general aspersions is not a collegial way of building an encyclopedia. ARS is not a magic wand, if a subject can be shown to be notable by improving it with regular editing and identifying sources then we all win. If the subject is still lacking notability then it will be removed. Glee^anon 15:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What was an aspersion (or aspersions) about that? The fact is notifying ARS about an AfD increases keep votes. Otherwise, there would be no reason anyone from ARS would alert each other. BTW, find it kind of odd how sensitive you ARS people are. Especially considering how many times you all make things personal. I never see you calling each other out for it either, but then rather benign comments like Spartaz always seems to trigger the castigating from you guys and the fake virtue signaling about how much you all care about civility (like Rite Cite's comment on you talk page), when most of you are extremely far from civil about things. FYI, I'm not perfect myself either, but then I'm not leaving messages on people's talk pages fawning over them "putting other people in their place" either or pretending that I'm (or the group I'm a member of is) gods gift to Wikipedia either. I look forward to you and Rite Cite telling ARS people to tone it down the next time one of them gets condecending in an AfD. I'm sure there have been a few over the last few weeks where neither of you said anything when it happened. Even though you supposedly so concerned about it. Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I highly doubt Rite Side would be this proficent and calculated at editing articles and doing other things if he was just a few week old editor, who's only seriously edited like 4 articles. It's something to think about. Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your not assuming good faith is noted. Glee^anon 18:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a lack of AGF is a common, extremely trite way to handwave away legitimate comments and concerns. Its also worthless outside of using it for trite handwaving because it takes a lack of good faith to say someone else isn't assuming any. Personally, I'm not such a big fan of such passive agressive, mealy mouthed ways of responding to people. Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Glee^anon 19:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please note that per the instructions given at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list, I have notified this discussion page itself about a listing to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, asking for help with research. (notice given, above). Thank you, Right cite (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources provided by MorbidThoughts and Right Cite. Certainly meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent expansion work done post-nom. The article clearly meets WP:GNG now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extensively referenced, clearly meets WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets GNG even if more cleanup is needed. Glee^anon 15:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG in that she receives significant coverage in reliable and verifiable secondary sources and those sources are listed. Quantity does not matter as much as quality but when quality is put with quantity it is a win for the encyclopedia. What constitutes a reliable secondary source can differ when going from one industry to another or even one culture to another. Nothing else matters to me but GNG in this case. I look at essays and guidelines if a subject is on the fence in regards to GNG and it needs help pushing it one way or the other. For the record, I am not a member of ARS but I commend any project that seeks to increase the number of included/improved articles while helping to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. I also feel the attacks on them above are seriously uncalled for and "AGF" is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, not just for new editors but all editors. I think we all could learn to be a little more civil in our tone and the words we use, myself included. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 * '''Keep''' Extensively referenced, clearly meets [[WP:GNG]]. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 14:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''', clearly meets GNG even if more cleanup is needed. <span style="box-shadow: 0px 0px 12px deeppink; background-color: black; padding: 3px; color: white"><b>[[User:Gleeanon409|<span style="color:orange">Glee</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Gleeanon409|<span style="color: magenta">anon</span>]]</sup></b></span> 15:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' meets [[WP:GNG]] in that she receives significant coverage in reliable and verifiable secondary sources and those sources are listed. Quantity does not matter as much as quality but when quality is put with quantity it is a win for the encyclopedia. What constitutes a reliable secondary source can differ when going from one industry to another or even one culture to another. Nothing else matters to me but GNG in this case. I look at essays and guidelines if a subject is on the fence in regards to GNG and it needs help pushing it one way or the other. For the record, I am not a member of ARS but I commend any project that seeks to increase the number of included/improved articles while helping to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. I also feel the attacks on them above are seriously uncalled for and "AGF" is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, not just for new editors but all editors. I think we all could learn to be a little more civil in our tone and the words we use, myself included. --[[User:Tsistunagiska|Tsistunagiska]] ([[User talk:Tsistunagiska|talk]]) 12:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)