Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelica Bella (3rd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Angelica Bella
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced. Original research. No assertion of notability under the applicable policy. Various claims violating BLP, including the spectacularly unsourced claim that she performed with her sister in a film titled (in translation) "Incest." While the Ginger Jolie AFD hasn't achieved a consensus, the discussion there shows a consensus that articles like this one should be deleted. Not eligible for speedy, unfortunately. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several sources are in the article. The claim that she performed with her sister is in the article in Deltadivinere. Both previous AfDs resulted in Keep, so I would have expected the nom to comment on why those decisions should be overturned. --Crusio (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Response. No third-party reliable sources in article, just promo pieces of dubious origin. You can't seriously be claiming that a puff piece for a porn film is sufficient under BLP to source what is in effect a claim "she had sex on film with her sister." And the applicable nobility standard has been strengthened since those discussions. Consensus changes, that's why I cited the detailed Jolie AFD. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you mind pointing out specifically what change made since May 2008 backs up your statement? WP:PORNBIO has only had 1 change since just after the merge to bio in 2007, and all that effectively did was merge the old criteria 2 and 3. Even that change took place before the last AFD, so I don't see how your claim can be considered accurate. Horrorshowj (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The second AFD was not resolved, but withdrawn, so your argument is pointless. The applicable policy has changed since the last time the article was actually measured against it. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. While nom withdrew, there were delete arguments so he didn't close. It was closed as keep by an admin following the full run of the discussion. So again, policy has not actually changed since the last AfD. Horrorshowj (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy close very pointy nomination, subject of this BLP has not requested deleted, Ginger Jolie has George The Dragon (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The BLP violation was added by an editor in August 2008. Most of this editor's changes were reverted. This one got missed, but it was an easily fixable problem. As for notability, the consensus in May was keep based on a 1993 Hot D'Or win, which is not verifiable online but likely to be true. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. Enchantress, I am confused. I just looked up the Ginger Jolie AfD and there you voted "keep", whereas here you seem to say that we should delete given the discussion over there. Could you please explain your reasoning? --Crusio (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * An easy question to answer. The Ginger Jolie discussion, given the matters under dispute, establishes that a Penthouse Pet, who has appeared in relatively high-profile pornographic films, but has no mainstream coverage, and no awards within the gene, is viewed within Wikipedia as at the lower end of the notability spectrum.  The subject of this article does not have a "credntial" equivalent to "Penthouse Pet" (laugh stifled at that phrase), has not appeared in such high-profile films, has no mainstream coverage, and no awards within the genre. She therefore would fall below the notability threshold. The Jolie discussion indicates roughly where the breakpoint is for pornographic performers, and the subject of this article clearly falls below that breakpoint. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Close nominator failed to provide anything even vaguely resembling a policy based rationale for deletion. AFD is not a substitute for OPRS, and there's no evidence this was submitted via those channels. Additionally I take an extremely dim view of nom mass nominating porn articles as inherent BLP violations.Horrorshowj (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. It is clear that most of the "Keep" comments are motivated by animosity toward the nominator (which I, of couse, do not share . . .), and that those comments are riddled with assumptions of bad faith, and, in the case of Horrorshowj, deliberate falsehoods. There are no reliable third-party sources verifying notability, aqnd there are not even any claims in the article meeting the current versions of the notability standard, verified or unverified.  And the supposed award, not mentioned in the article, has never been substantiated by anything other than a redlinked reference in an entirely unsourced article in the French edition of Wikipedia -- where the notability of the award itself has been challenged.  Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are 4 sources in the article, thus a claim it's "Unsourced" is false. Nom claims OR, but never mentions what in the article qualifies. JNN since again, no explanation of why. Assertion is the threshold in speedies not AfD. Since NOM admits article not speedy eligible, this is also a false statement. Her specific BLP comment required cleanup, but isn't a reason for AfD under policy. Then she ends it with a bizarre claim that this is due to consensus in and AfD that hasn't finished and seems unlikely to reach consensus. Since that one involved an alleged request of the subject, which isn't present here, it wouldn't provide precedent to do this anyway. Thus nom fails to provide anything resembling a policy based reason for deletion in her argument and it should be speedy closed. What exactly are you claiming I'm lying about?Horrorshowj (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * keep is apparently a notable porn star. Meets notability criteria based on the sources in the article and there's no BLP issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable in her genre, plenty of sources. Concerns about WP:POINT in this nomination. Last AFD was only a few months ago and resulted in keep; so WP:NOTAGAIN also applies. 23skidoo (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per 23skidoo and my comments above. Nothing has really changed since the 2nd AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator due to a lack of non-trivial coverage by third parties.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per my rationale in the second AFD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * delete not really notable. Some historical/high culture thing has the same name which confuses the searches and returns a lot of results for the phase/name which aren't anything to do with this person, but she personally is barely mentioned. At the very least it belongs on the Italian wiki more than this one, as slightly more notable over there. As the article itself says, she's only been in a handful of American films. Sticky Parkin 19:01, 22 October 2008 (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.