Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 29

29 November 2013

Finnbay

Finnbay (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reason for previous deletion couple months ago: Delete no indication of notability per WP:WEB, and no significant coverage online from WP:Secondary sources.

I spoke to Gogo Dodo on recreating Finnbay due to new sources and info (cause they exposed Time magazine's buff on news item and nokia's f.ck you message on twitter) I think it should be archived on wikipedia. They are linked by trust-able sources: http://www.helsinki.fi/newstudents/index.html (on the right, discover part) http://www.aalto.fi/en/for/international/ http://jyy.fi/en/2013/03/18/jyy-student-news-week-122013/ (bottom) http://www.travelhelsinki.net/notizie/ (publishing their news) http://www.finnfacts.fi/eng/facts-about-finland/useful-links/ http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304747004579228190122617098 http://www.europam.org/review-finnbay-and-global-political-economy/ http://anonyymitelaimet.com/en/?tag=finnbay http://www.welcomeweeks.fi/en/useful-links

Here are the new info and sources for the article and would like to add them to the page to improve the article. <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) {if you want us to look at a draft, please can you put it somewhere else as posting it here breaks up the formatting of this page. thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)}

Hi, Spartaz, Sure. It was just for you to check it out rather than a suggestion to use it for the new page but I put it on my page for you see it as a draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Campsite55#Finnbay_Draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse your comment was "and no significant coverage online from WP:Secondary sources", yet your links to the site and refs in the article aren't "significant coverage". What am I missing? (FWIW the WP:GNG defines significant as "addresses the topic directly and in detail") --86.5.93.42 (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Added new links but most of them are in Finnish and does not fit for the EN page.
  • Using Finnish sources is fine. The links you've added seem to be a couple of blogs(See WP:USERG). One of those blogs I can't identify any information about who authors it or their qualifications, the other is a single sentence, so hardly significant coverage and is essentially advertising their relationship with finnbay, so certainly not independent coverage. The other again doesn't appear to amount to significant coverage, it's a single directory style entry. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• First off why are you using another sockpuppet? Your main account of User:Alabama5 is unblocked, you should stop trying to hide your history. For the record I'm the one who nominated your page for deletion, it made no credible claim to notability then, and as it looks to me now, after 2 page SALTings and many many deletions, it still doesn't. Yes, your website pointed out that TIME made a small mistake (by using a pre-WW2 map of the region). The real question is - who cares? On Wikipedia we have a general notability guideline requring significant coverage (i.e. not a short trivial mention) of the subject. The fact that you pointed out a small mistake that likely no one outside your company cares about, isn't going to cut it. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Happy Thanksgiving everyone! TIME mag issue may be a very tiny small thing for people outside of Finland but it was huge in Finland. It was printed on every single major Finnish news-outlet (i gave the iltalehti link in the article), also Iltasanomat: http://www.iltasanomat.fi/kotimaa/art-1288564684900.html , Aamulehti: http://www.aamulehti.fi/Ulkomaat/1194813052622/artikkeli/time-lehti+siirsi+suomen+rajat+karjala+ja+kaksi+kasivartta+.html , Satakunnan Kansa: http://www.satakunnankansa.fi/Ulkomaat/1194813052773/artikkeli/time-lehti+siirsi+suomen+rajat+karjala+ja+kaksi+kasivartta+.html , Prokarelia: http://prokarelia.net/fi/?x=artikkeli&article_id=2072&author=10 The info I injected in this website's wiki article only shows notable and significant info for those who are into Finland relations. If you look at their competitors like helsinki times wiki page, it is just advertising and 90% of them are not significant for wiki info but its there. We all know how hard it is to create new info on TIME wiki page or Nokia's. Also, the Nokia issue is important cause they deleted the tweet from their Nokia tweet page. Thus, it must be given mention on wiki and archived with its notable author. talk

  You seem to be struggling. WP:GNG is about if the subject has been written about in reliable third party sources directly and in detail. None of the sources you show do that. notability is not inherited if the events they have discussed are notable, it doesn't rub off onto the people who reported it. Also see WP:NOTNEWS there are many things which appear in the news and have very short term interest, wikipedia as an encyclopedia doesn't document or "archive" them. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

  What you are saying is very subjective when compared with other wiki listings, especially "wikipedia as an encyclopedia doesn't document or "archive" them". That's only your own opinion. EU Transparency page (resurrected-few min ago): http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=497621512369-67&isListLobbyistView=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

  You need for the last time independent reliable sources which cover the subject directly in detail, regardless of the subjectivity you may perceive elsewhere. You have still failed to produce that. Appearing on a register shows nothing, it doesn't show that the world at large is interested. You are getting quite close if not beyond "I didn't hear that" --86.5.93.42 (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Elexis Monroe

Elexis Monroe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but the article should be restored because now that the 2014 XBIZ Award nominations have been announced, the subject has been nominated for two new non-scene-related awards (Girl/Girl Performer of the Year and Best Actress), thus passing WP:PORNBIO.

But one more quick thing...I recently brought this to WP:AN and it was shot down by Spartaz for apparent forum-shopping and not providing decent sources, which is odd for two reasons:

1. Re-evaluting the discussion was Spartaz's idea in the first place.
2. The new source was listed directly in my rationale (how is this not a decent source?).

It was also mentioned that WP:PORNBIO is disputed, which isn't 100% false, but...no one has commented on the discussion about it at all since October 11th (and I personally did not participate in it). Having no consensus on a guideline does not mean the guideline is invalid. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Listing this at AN rather then DRV is clearly forum shopping and an attempt to override process to get the answer you want

2. Can you please stop personalising discussions? Focus on the content not the contributor

3. A list of nominations is not a detailed reliable secondary source for the purposes of meeting GNG.

4. Since you keep bringing up old history I'll remind you that AN endorsed the closing of the previous DRV and accepted that there was a problem with PORNBIO

5. The discussion may have tailed off but no-one has seriously argued against the fact that PORNBIO is disputed and this means that it is no longer a valid reason to argue that BLP articles that fail the GNG should be retained against the wider community consensus that BLP requires decent sourcing.

6. If you can get a consensus to rewrite PORNBIO in a way that does meet wider community expectations then I expect it will no longer be disputed.

7. Elexis Munro has been nominated as one of 15 people in the girl/girl category and one of 11 in what is not best actress as you asserted but the least important of the 4 sub catagories - Best Actress - All-Girl Release. To my mind this isn't isn't enough to override the GNG but I'd be open minded in allowing a relist Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Doing exactly what you suggested I do is forum-shopping? If so, why did you suggest it? And you really need to retire the "personalizing" argument because you apparently have a different definition for the word than I have (I've asked you numerous times how I'm personalizing anything and you never responded). But if you're allowing a relist, at least we're getting somewhere. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Your claims that it's what Spartaz suggested is disingenuous at best, and really I don't think your reading comprehension skills are that abysmal. What he said back in August per your link was "If you feel that I have acted incorrectly you can seek feedback at WT:DRV to see if anyone else agrees with you.", so let's see he's talking about the way he acted and suggests you bring it up at WT:DRV to see if there is agreement about the way he acted. He did not say, "if in three months time you find some vague new sources, take it to WP:AN" and I do not see any reasonable way of reading what he said as meaning that. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

My reading comprehension skills are abysmal? What are you trying to say? That's a borderline personal attack, so you'd better watch it. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"really I don't think your reading comprehension skills are that abysmal", guess you are doing your best to prove me wrong. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse. Unambiguous AfD. The new source adds nothing. It is two trivial mentions, absolutely no commentary, from a connected source. PORNBIO is a farce of a guideline. Ask anyone supporting catalogues of porn actors for having Wikipedia standalone biographies to declare any COI with the porn industry. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Erpert's evasion and attempt at obfuscation of the question confirms that it is a good question. Undeclared COI issues are highly relevant to process discussions. If Erpert has a COI here, he should not be participating in either the AfD (where he failed to persuade others), or related DRV discussions. This is an important consideration at DRV. It may be beyond the scope of DRV to say that if Erpert has a COI, he should not be influencing related guidelines, and certainly not while undeclared. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm evading the question? You didn't even ask a question, SmokeyJoe. And as for a conflict of interest, I don't know Ms. Monroe personally, nor am I a member of WikiProject Pornography. So I'm sorry...where's my conflict of interest? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Are you connected to the porn industry? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• No, I'm not, and I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse and speedy close. Erpert has been repeatedly warned about personalizing deletion discussions, but persists in this disruptive behavior. Absent any indication that such nominations for tinfoil trophies in minor categories meet the "well-known"/"significant" standard (preferably through nontrivial coverage by independent sources), there's no reason to go through this again. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Two things:

@SmokeyJoe: Anyone that supports having a porn biography must have a conflict of interest? Can you prove that?

@HW, you have yet to clarify how I am personalizing anything either. As you don't seem to understand, you are not in charge of Wikipedia, so you can't call something disruptive just because it differs with your own personal opinion (in fact, that's disruptive--and there is no chance for this to be speedily closed because the situation is different and you know it).

But returning to the subject...can any of you actually explain why the new source is invalid? Basically, all you're saying is why PORNBIO is apparently a problem, these awards aren't important, etc, etc; which, as in the past, is less about policy or even consensus and is instead using WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and/or WP:IAR (or even WP:IARBIAS) as a last resort. If I'm wrong about that, prove it to me (and anyway, at least Spartaz is willing to allow a relist). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Its not a source for Elexis Monroe, its a list of nominations & for the purposes of supporting a detailed biographical article on a living subject it is worthless except confirming that she has been nominated for something whose significance is not universally accepted. In other words, its as much use as wet fart in a thunderstorm. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It's as much use as what??? 8-} Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

[1] Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review The question, btw, is whether we should permit the article should be restored, not about individuals at WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • That is greatly appreciated. Incidentally, I also created a userspace draft with the new source added. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• What we really ought to do is mark WP:PORNBIO as historical, since all of Wikipedia's processes consistently refuse to enforce it.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There wouldn't be any porn-related articles on Wikipedia if that were really the case. Also, as DGG clarified above, this is the place to discuss the article, not PORNBIO. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Didn't you start this thread arguing that PORNBIO was the reason for restoring the article? Surely, in that case, the status of PORNBIO is rather relevant to the strength of your argument. No need to thank me for explaining this to you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
      • S Marshall talked about PORNBIO alone, not PORNBIO in conjunction with Elexis Monroe. And lose the attitude, please. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support restoration. Elexis Monroe is quite notable and I honestly don't see what there is to discuss here. Her awards are certainly enough to pass WP:PORNBIO. Monroe has been nominated for:

XBIZ Awards

Girl/Girl Performer of the Year (2014)

Best Actress - All-Girl Release (2014)

MILF Performer of the Year (2013)

MILF Performer of the Year (2012)

Acting Performance of the Year - Female (2011)

AVN Awards

MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year (2012)

• I still believe that the controversial MILF Performer awards are notable, but lets avoid that discussion for now and focus on her remaining XBIZ Award nominations:

Girl/Girl Performer of the Year (new award which I think is just as notable as any other LGBT award category such as Gay Performer of the Year and Transsexual Performer of the Year. AVN has added this new category for their 2014 awards as well. I personally think this is long overdue. These ceremonies should have added this category years ago. It is perhaps the only thing I always though they were missing.)

Best Actress - All-Girl Release (Some might argue that this award isn't notable because it is a subcategory and not a generic best actress award. Lets not forget that the AVN Awards divided their categories into video and film subcategories for several years. They had "Best Actress - Video and "Best Actress - Film" for example. These awards are still considered notable, so why wouldn't all the best actress subcategories from XBIZ be notable as well?)

Acting Performance of the Year - Female (I don't think I have to explain this one. We all know this category is quite well-known and significant.

• And also, would you all please stop bickering over who's "personalizing discussions" and whatnot and focus on Elexis Monroe. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please can you link the discussion that agreed that Best Actress - All Girl Release is a notable award. Perhaps you can find some independant sourcing that discusses this award to a standard compatable with the GNG? Or was that a personal opinion dressed up as a statement of fact. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no discussion proving that the Best Actress - All Girl Release award is notable, at least not to my knowledge, but I haven't seen any discussion prove that it isn't notable either. Like I said, Best Actress awards are notable and I haven't seen anyone on WP dispute the significance of Best Actress subcategories such as the AVN Awards for "Best Actress (Video) and Best Actress (Film). Why should the XBIZ Award subcategories be any different? Aside from the "Best Actress - All Girl Release" award, we still have two nominations left. What's your opinion on the "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" and "Acting Performance of the Year - Female" awards? Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Spartaz, you're saying Best Actress isn't a notable award? Are you serious? Try that argument on Talk:Academy Award and see where that gets you. You said you were willing to allow a relist, so why are you now fighting this so hard? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)