Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Wicky


 * 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. makes a reasonable argument on the keep side, but didn't gain much support. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Angel Wicky

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Rampant puffery that fails GNG & PORNBIO. If judged to pass needs a decent dose of WP:TNT Spartaz Humbug! 09:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable, she was shooting for Playboy. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   16:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:WASSHOOTINGFORPLAYBOY is unfortunately not a notability criteria, and is an unsourced claim to boot. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - No indication or assertion of notability, does not meet pornbio or WP:N. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Seems to receive extensive coverage from Czech press. No idea about the reliability of those sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing comes close to passing pornographic actors requirements and there is also a severe lack of reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep While I'm not a big fan of porn stars in Wikipedia, there are references such as in-depth treatment here and here and here and here and here. Meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you explain the nature of the sites you have cited and how they meet RS? What biograophical data do they offer about the subject? Super.CZ has no byline and SIP looks really brief and again byline not clear. I'd be reluctant to accept without more detail of the nature of the site and how they meet RS. Spartaz Humbug! 22:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * They are Czech porn-industry related magazines and newspapers who clearly think Angel Wicky is news, whatever that means. I doubt these publications rise to the level of The Guardian or the New York Times in terms of sourcing, editorial review and such, but at the same time, it seems fairly clear to me that in the Czech porn world, AW is a big deal, although my personal sense is that I would prefer this kind of stuff not be in Wikipedia, as I said, but that is my view, and I'm just trying to go by the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * so am I which is why i asked you how they meet RS. Specifically fact checking and reliability. If they are the czech eqivilent of Razzle then we cant use them. Spartaz Humbug! 08:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * SIP is a Czech entertainment-lifestyle magazine, translated here, which almost certainly does not have the journalistic standards of The Guardian or the New York Times but it does what it does -- covers celebrity news, lifestyle information, sex and relationships. It has high production values (colorful images, links) and is current-oriented, meaning it probably has a wide circulation among Czech-speaking people, that is, if it printed untruths or made up stories, it would lose readers. It has a newsroom and an editor in chief named Michal Broz. What I am saying is that Angel Wicky gets sufficient exposure in this magazine, with wide circulation, with editors and reporters and writers and advertisers, that it qualifies (in my view) as a reliable source although I realize that it is unfamiliar to most of us living in the western world.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Something like Hello then? Spartaz Humbug! 10:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes something along those lines. Here's a translated home page of another magazine called topky which, like you say, appears similar to Hello magazine -- it is that type of magazine, as you rightly point out. So if people consider magazines like Hello to be substandard for Wikipedia, then they'll probably vote Delete, or if they allow it, then a case could be made for Keep. Views on this can vary. For me, in the pop culture cruft world of entertainment and celebrities and gossip and crap, this is standard fare, sourcing wise, probably okay for crufty subjects like a porn star, but definitely not suitable for a subject like the health effects of breast implants.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The rampant puffery in this article is precisely why I would not personally accept a publication like this as a RS. Titillation is clearly more important that accuracy and a BLP deserves better. Spartaz Humbug! 09:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tomwsulcer. I don't believe a source becomes unreliable because they cover topics like porn even if other countries consider those topics sensationalistic. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PORNBIO which was the original reason (under the earlier wording of the guideline) that this article was created, and kept at the time. I would accept the sources found by Tomwsulcer as collateral for somebody with a very slim pass of any other guideline, but on their own these sources can not establish notability under WP:GNG. Tabloid magazines are not independent enough from porn stars and Playboy playmates. It would indeed require multiple stories in the Czech Republics largest mainstream metro newspapers (comparable to the New York Times or the Guardian as pointed out above), or something from the big TV stations, to clear GNG, not necessarily for their reliability (if I see bare breasts, I believe that they are there) but for the breadth of their audience and their choice of what they publish. Show me some in-depth story in, let's say Právo, and I'll have a look. Kraxler (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clickbait tabloidery/"celebrity journalism" is no substitute for reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2015 (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.