Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobbi Starr (2nd 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. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Bobbi Starr
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

I’m renominating this as the previous discussion was tainted by socking and we have seen no real improvement in this since the previous afd closed. This remains a very thinly sourced BLP that fails GNG and N Spartaz Humbug! 21:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly passes GNG and well sourced page despite what nominator suggests.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which sources do you think pass gng? Spartaz Humbug! 19:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, AVN which is used extensively on the page is agreed on WP:RSP to be generally reliable source, as is The Sydney Morning Herald. CNBC is also a major publication that is also cited of which I see nothing to suggest is unreliable. Helper201 (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * AVN isn’t going to get an article over the line when it has such a terrible reputation for republishing press releases and repeatimg bullshit without critical input. Also its the nature of the coverage that counts not the source that counts. Spartaz Humbug! 21:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, an RfC at RSN believed otherwise. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Lets address the SMH, which is according to the link a blog so not definitely notable and funny enough for me doesn’t open either in the original or the web citation. Did you get it open? Can you summarise the content, or did you just see the source and decide this page would do? As for the CNBC source, well its shitty clickbait but more important its trivial coverage that in no way is a substantial source that meets the depth of coverage required by GNG. Perhaps rather than just making an assertion you can assess the best sources and tell us why you think they pass the gng in terms of independent, reliable and sufficient depth. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Newsblog and WP:LINKROT Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - She passes the GNG. In addition to some of the sources already mentioned in the article or discussion, she is extensively written about in Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comments and sources found by ScottishFinnishRadish in the previous AfD.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Should never have been nominated. Starr is discussed at length in several books, for example by Helen Hester in Beyond Explicit: Pornography and the Displacement of Sex, published in 2014 by the State University of New York Press and by Rich Moreland in Pornography Feminism: As Powerful as She Wants to Be, published in 2015 by John Hunt Publishing. How could a nominator have missed these? These findings and nom's intro suggest that no proper WP:BEFORE was done. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2021 (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.