Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaliyah Love


 * 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. There is consensus that the quality of the available sources cannot lift the subject past WP:GNG at this time. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Aaliyah Love

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Only nominations, no awards; no independent, reliable sourcing; no reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without substantive explanation or article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete She has not risen to the level of notability required by the porn bio rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. I don't even think you actually read the article before bringing it to AfD. "No independent, reliable sourcing; no reliably sourced biographical content"? Are you serious? There are only two primary sources (the ones from her website) in the entire article. The rest are "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (AVN and XBIZ). Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why the combative and accusatory tone Rebecca, how do you know HW hasn't reviewed these sources and rejected them as regurgitated press release and/or undisguised promotion.
 * For example. Look at reference 9 in the article which is promotional text trying to get people to pay to watch an X-rated video of an interview. The text goes as follows Aaliyah Love is Twisty’s Treat of the Month! A tasty, succulent treat, you just want to put in your mouth and suck on. She’s like an effervescent ray of sugar and sunshine. If she were a flavor, it would be orange creamsicle. Sweet, creamy, with just a hint of tart. Aaliyah sparkles in this interview and with bubbly enthusiasm, lets us in on all the delicious details about her private life. She tells about the craziest place she’s had sex, what turns her on in a man, and about her sexual fantasies. She’s so entirely ravishing, oozing with buckets of sensuality and unbridled sex appeal, so much so that it’s hard to imagine there was a time when she was a preschool teacher. Lucky for us, Aaliyah switched gears and took the fast track to porn super-stardom. Be sure to check out the NSFW version of this vid where Aaliyah shows us her perky tits and delectable pussy. Not a sight to be missed! 
 * Please can you explain how this source meets our requires and what encyclopedic information we can get from this source. At the same time I looked at the usual reguritated press releases - there is a clue when they include the press release contact at the bottom on their text. So which of this rubbish do you think is a reliable source and why? I'm certainly not accepting your assertions at face value given what is masquerading as a source already. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're voting "delete" because of only one source in the entire article? I never implied that the ZZInsider source contributes to her passing the GNG. I said that she has sufficient coverage in AVN and XBIZ magazines to pass the GNG. And none of the AVN/XBIZ sources in the article are press releases. Press releases on AVN are labeled "Company News" and press releases on XBIZ are labeled "Company Press" and none of the AVN/XBIZ sources in this article are labeled as "Company News/Press". Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm voting delete because none of these purported sources are any good. Lets look at a couple. The first one in the article XBIZ is clearly a press release - look - here it is a again on AVN. Is this reallyt what you think is independant reporting? Me I call it a reprinted press release. AVN Interview is a primary source and doesn't count. This from AVN is clearly a press release - and something very similar shows up here. So another press release. The next purported reference is again XBIZ but guess what AVN has written exactly the same story. Rebecca there are some serious problems with these sources you are relying on. They are not only clearly rewritten press releases but they show you making unfounded allegations of sources not being checked when in fact the issue is that 'YOU haven't done your due diligence. If you want the closing admin to take anything you say seriously you need to actually check your sources, cite them and then demonstrate how they apply to the GNG. Absent that its just unfounded assertions that have very little weight at all. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 07:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The existence of a press release does not invalidate the news article written by a journalist on the same topic or event and AVN and XBIZ are both reliable sources. Me and other editors have explained this to you all numerous times already. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not independent or fact checked if its a reprinted press-release and we have been discounting nonsense like this for years. Your arguments are completely not based on policy or reality. Spartaz Humbug! 09:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, you started up saying that none of the sources were press releases, and when I proved they were you chanhed your argument. You are the one who doesn't do their work and you still haven't provided a shred of policy or evidence to support your arguments. Frankly you have absolutely no credibility. Spartaz Humbug! 09:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no press releases cited in the article. Those AVN and XBIZ sources are reliable and independent of the subject. They weren't written by Love, a publicist, or anyone else affiliated with her. They were written by qualified journalists Rhett Pardon, Mark Kernes, and Todd Lewis. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm bored with your refusal to respond to reality but let me try one more time. If these writers were writing independently, how come their text and article structure are the same? By the way, are you sure Rhett Pardon is a real person? They seem to have no personal internet existence - not even a linkedin profile. Its almost like its a made up person. Fancy that happening in this day and age... Spartaz Humbug! 13:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Spartaz's analysis is spot on target; Rebecca is just blowing smoke. These "independent" sources are just slightly retouched press releases and presskit pieces, entirely based on PR materials provided on behalf of the subject or her business associates. Compare this "independent" piece of "journalism" (ref #5 in the article) with this piece from a PR feed. The fact that PR material sometimes isn't reprinted exactly verbatim doesn't make it independent, it just shows a little dab of lipstick on the pig. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete BLPs require much better sourcing then available above. Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep although this fails WP:PORNBIO, it passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How? Spartaz Humbug! 20:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -seems notable to me Bali88 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as not-notable. Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Spartaz is correct about the low quality of sources for the article. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete - yet another pointless porn star article. Every source is a press release. Yawn. --YasminPerry (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Struck as returning blocked user. Spartaz Humbug! 19:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable enough. Ilovepitts (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with Rebecca1990.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please remember that WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to avoid, and making WP:JUSTAVOTE does not help. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete (which I'm surprised to be typing given the number of sources provided). The problem I'm having is that the supposedly independent, reliable sources (like XBIZ) are almost word-for-word reprints of press releases. That's not "journalism" or anything approaching it. The rest of the sources, from what I can tell, are passing mentions in award nomination lists. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, not significant coverage in material written by the subject's agent. Happy to reconsider, of course, but I'm not convinced by the arguments for keeping this presented above. Stalwart 111  08:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as above. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   18:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with Stalwart111's argument. Finnegas (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Stalwart111's analysis. Hipocrite (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment reprints of press released and passing mention in long lists do not add up to the indepth coverage that is required.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - no reliable sources? geez, there are plenty of them. she passes WP:GNG. We are not here to judge her profession we are here to judge her notability, and that part she does not fail.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What sources do you think meet the GNG? We already looked very closely at the sources in the article so what part of my analysis is incorrect? Spartaz Humbug! 06:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.