Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyda Rosen


 * 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. It would appear that there are still concerns regarding the notability of this subject, and an effort should be made to ensure that this article doesn't show up at AfD again sometime down the line by making sure it reliably passes notability criteria. Shereth 22:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Clyda Rosen

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No reliable sources to confirm notability. Does she satisfy WP:PORNBIO? Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep belonged to a different era thus lacking RS, has comprehensive credits, some of which are googleable. Annette46 (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I looked for reliable sources that confirm whether she won or was nominated for any well-known awards, made any unique contributions to porn, or was featured multiple times in non-pornographic media. I didn't find anything reliable in a google search. I couldn't find anything in news.google.com. She performed into the 90s. For such longevity, you'd figure there'd be reliable sources of her if she was notable similar to Ginger Lynn or Christy Canyon. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment she was notable for appearances involving a new genre of big breasted hirsuitism and had a cult following, and now a blogspot offering. There were hardly any industry "awards" in the 70's. Given the time gap, the examples are not strictly comparable. Annette46 (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't like seeing other peoples work deleted and Annette makes a pretty strong case for keeping this article. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I don't think the birthname belongs, but that's no reason to delete the whole article about this clearly notable porn actress. David in DC (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - At least what are the sources for her biography? There's 3 rich paragraphs and. as it stands, it's all original research without the appropriate citations. Her notability is not clear without any RS verifying it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.   —Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong KeepEven if you dispute her real name that is surely no reason to demand the whole article be deleted. She had a career lasting from the early seventies till the early 1990s, appeared in numerous films and magazines and is the subject of many internet articles and sites, worked with historically important pornographic characters eg Lasse Braun, surely that warrants her inclusion on Wikipedia. The “sources” for the information in the article are clearly the films/magazines mentioned themselves, e.g. the existence of the film Sex Maniacs proves she worked with Lasse Braun, the existence of the 1990s titles proves she was still working in the 1990s, we can tell she had a breast reduction in the mid 70s because her physical appearance in films alters around that time.  Run her name through search engines and you’ll find many sites about her backing this info up.

I also should mention that this page was marked for deletion before, and was allowed to remain. As the text was pretty much the same, in fact it was less detailed then, this second nomination for deletion seems totally unnecessary. --Gavcrimson (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment First, WP:OR clearly states "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors" and "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". The movies and magazines themselves are primary sources. Concluding that she had a breast reduction by comparing her appearance or that the existence of 1990 titles showed she was still working in the 90s are all examples of prohibited original analysis. If you admit her biography relies on the primary sources, then you are admitting to original research. Second, nothing in her biography verifies her notability in accordance with WP:BIO with reliable sources. I mentioned before I ran a search and could not find any RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've now extensively wikilinked this (and copy-edited a bit, too), but it remains without sources. Can we call off the AfD for a set period, to give the principal editor time to connect the facts to the kind of reliable sources described here -> WP:RS? If we could, could you, Gavcrimson?David in DC (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest Gavcrimson maintain a copy of this article in his userspace in case it is deleted and work on citing the biography to reliable sources. Particularly he should focus on finding reliable sources that verify/state that Clyda Rosen made unique contributions to pornography or satisfies the other criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gav, just leave it let these people get on with what they want to do, at least then you will be able to give your undivided attention to other sites much more deserving of your quite extensive knowledge and receive the due credit you deserve..the added bonus is you will be able to keep your hair and sleep at night..my best regards Rbt Foot.

I agree, I could cite references for this, but what is the point when there are people here who refuse to believe any published book or internet site is a “reliable source”. For what its worth throughout my entire contributions to Wikipedia I’ve tried to be helpful, provide information and where needed back this up with reliable sources. But over the last few weeks I’ve seen people delete vital information from articles and pointlessly re-write them, as well as forcing me to constantly defend my sources from people who clearly know nothing about the article’s subjects (eg having to defend the right to use Mary Millington’s real name when it can be sourced from multiple reliable books, articles and internet sites). Like RBT foot I care passionately about these Wikipedia subjects, that is why I stuck with this nonsense day in day out, but clearly there are people here whose entire “contributions” to Wikipedia consist of deleting and challenging others material, and thus making valuable contributions to this site virtually impossible. --Gavcrimson (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gav.You are taking things to personally. The deletion process requires consensus and this attempt is very likely to fail. As for sources and all of

that.That too is part of editing Wikipedia. You are not being singled out here or anything like that. You have just walked into the middle of a dispute about using the real names of people who are part of something controversial. Read about the Star wars kid and then read its talk page and you will see what I mean. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think it's worth noting that this AfD has been up for more than 24 hours and it's been on the WP Porn Project's list of proposed deletions only 9 minutes less. So far exactly one editor (the nominator) thinks this whole article is so egregious that it should be deleted rather than rescued. One. Uno. Echad. Ein. I. 1. Would an uninvolved admin please close this AfD sooner rather than later. David in DC (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant, reliable and independant sources. Epbr123 (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, the article is hoax and her name is false, good jewish girls do not act in porno films RobertRosen (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment a simple google search "Clyda Rosen hairy pussy" will show why she deserves to be retained. She is a pioneer in the "hairy pussy" genre and the "hairiest pussy / armpit ever", and BTW I agree with gavcrimson on what constitutes a reliable source. Annette46 (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The simple google search, "Clyda Rosen hairy pussy" reveals opinions expressed in mostly message board threads and blogs, which are not reliable sources. See WP:SPS. I'd like you to comb through those links and give some examples on what you think is a reliable source and why you think it's reliable. Further, I want you to compare those examples to the type of references cited in the Jenna Jameson article and tell me how your examples are just as reliable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As the weblinks are clearly not Self Published Sources I am not required to do what you suggest. There is sufficient searcheable internet material on Clyda Rosen to show that she did exist (name change notwithstanding), still has a considerable cult following, was notable for her hairy pussy, her longevity in the smut industry and so on. A good place to start would be here. Not the bio which is admittedly from Wikipedia, but the filmography. Annette46 (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That good place to start is a forum posting which is a self-published source and is not reliable. All that link demonstrates is that she made movies and had a hairy pussy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment enough movies and hairy pussy to make her easily the most notable entry in British Girls Adult Film Database for the letter "C" Annette46 (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment "good jewish girls do not act in porno films", then that establishes her notability quite well wouldn't you say ? Annette46 (talk) 05:12, 18 August 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.