Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Stokely


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte Stokely

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails pirnbio and gng. Nominations don't count Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - NOTE: I have recently expanded the article under consideration here. The subject here has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" - namely the film Eve's Secret & the reality TV show Jenna's American Sex Star. Also, the subject here has been a mainstream model for American Apparel and has "had significant roles in multiple notable films & television shows" (as basically already stated above). Guy1890 (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A couple of points on your vote Guy. Firstly The film (Eve's Secret) is according to its article a made-for cable erotic film. To me that's not mainstream and not significant and I note that there is no evidence that the film is itself notable. I have therefore listed it for discussion at AFD. Secondly, I don't believe that taking part in a reality show counts as featured and again there should really be critical discussion of her performance to lift this into the required zone for PB#3. I'm not sure why you are citing ENT as that does not apply to porn performers by long precedence.. Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant standard in PORNBIO is "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", which means that there needs to be more than one featured appearance (in the film in question here, Ms. Stokely starred as the title character "Eve", and Ms. Stokely was one of the contestants on the reality show in question here) and that the type of media needs to be notable (which basically means that it needs to have its own Wikipedia article) and mainstream (of which both Cinemax and Playboy TV are considered, IMO, to be mainstream media).
 * Subjects of Wikipedia articles can obviously be evaluated under many different inclusion guidelines, and the subject here has appeared as a mainstream model in the past. Therefore, she can be evaluated under the NMODEL standard, which (in this case) is very similar to the relevant PORNBIO standard anyways. Guy1890 (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep she featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Where? Sources please? Or is just another made up vote from you? Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Softcore erotica is not "mainstream" work, per established practice. The American Apparel-related coverage includes no significant content regarded the article subject herself, mainly passing mentions and unverifiable self-sourced claims, and would justify no more than a delete-and-redirect to the subsection of the American Apparel article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - There do not appear to be any significant "unverifiable self-sourced claims" in the article under question here at this late date. The fact that the subject here has appeared as a mainstream model for American Apparel in the past is well-established at this point. Guy1890 (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * and that does not make her notable unless someone has written about her modelling for them in RS. Spartaz Humbug! 06:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And the subject's account of how she entered the porn business ia self-sourced and unverified -- more accurately, her two entirely different and irreconcilable accounts, both referenced in the article. Her version of her hiring by American Apparel falls into the same category. Right now, all the biographical info in the article is as likely to be kayfabe, if not fabrication, as it is to be accurate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "And the subject's account of how she entered the porn business"...is, in a word, unimportant. It's also neither unusual nor notable at all. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policies that prohibit the use of self-sourced information in Wikipedia articles, especially for completely non-controversial or non-notable information.
 * Again, that "Stokely has modeled for several American Apparel advertisements" is an established fact, beyond any reasonable doubt. Guy1890 (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP requires the use of high-quality, reliable sources. An article subject who tells thoroughly incompatible, unverifiable stories about her own professional career simply isn't a reliable source. The fact that's she's appeared in a few advertisements may be an established fact, but it's far, far below the standard required to demonstrate notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Guy1890. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   16:37, 7 October 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.