Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyda Rosen (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   delete. Cirt (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Clyda Rosen
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Issue still remains from the last AFD. Subject's notability can not be verified by reliable sources and article is entirely original research by creator of article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Delete In the last AfD, I said this: 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) Instead of taking up that suggestion, the principal author loudly withdrew from Wikipedia, offended that his original research was being questioned on this article and on a number of others. No one else has provided Reliable Sources either. It's time to put a fork in this turkey of an article, it's done. David in DC (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO BigDunc  Talk 21:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The closest to a reliable source I can find is an IMDB mention of her: but that isn't exactly the most reliable source, and even if it were it could only be used to verify her accting in a few films, and her name and birthdate.  That's not enough for a real article--and the current article, as nice as it reads, could be completely original research, for all we know.  Cazort (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- decltype (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as the article is not original reaearch. I was able to source her background and filmology. However, when I began to source her notability all I found (naturally) were porn sites acclaiming her breasts as a 1970s porn icon. Sorry. I do not wish to continue. Perhaps an expert in the firld?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found almost all of the sources either unreliable or have trivial coverage about her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to significant roles in numerous films (per WP:ENTERTAINER) is the claim to notability here and is easily verified.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:11, 5 May 2009 (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.