Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hailey Young


 * 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. Big Dom  14:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hailey Young

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability not asserted. No verifiable references other than a link to IMDB. Significantly, though, it fails WP:PORNBIO. LordVetinari (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Lots of sources and large body of work. Article needs work tho! --Stormbay (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you give some examples of the significant independent sources you've found? Epbr123 (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Try google or some such device yourself and spend a little time. I'm not a fan of the genre but she has accumulated a fairly impressive resume. --Stormbay (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, and insufficient sources available to meet WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable porn starlet and an unsourced BLP to boot. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Has her own blog. --MoonLichen (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Some clean up and referencing has occurred on the article. It has improved. --Stormbay (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Everybody who's okay with a BLP with the following unsourced line, raise your hand: ..is known for appearing in fetish films which have included themes such as innocence, bondage and bukkake. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Rewrote article and added sources from industry news sites considered reliable by WikiProject Pornography. Nihola (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. Since the "improvement" to the article touted by Nihola consists of nothing but adding citations to seven corporate press releases to the article in lieu of actual references, it counts for exactly nothing. Regardless of anything written by Wikiproject Pornography, or any other wikiproject, reliable sources, especially those cited in a BLP, must be independent of the article subject and have a reputation for accuracy. Company press releases -- that is to say, advertising -- is completely unacceptable as a source and is expressly disqualified from establishing notability by the GNG. The claim made here is beyond frivolous and approaches the point of being disruptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment That's pretty strong language. I used those sources specifically because I was trying to find reliable references out of the endless number of google hits, and Wikiproject Pornography says those are reliable sites for industry news. They are releases that indicate that she is indeed a porn actor, there is no assertion that she is 'the best' or 'the richest' or anything like that.  I don't think rewriting a page to remove all the garbage and attempting to find solid sources is disruptive or frivolous, and you should apologize for that.   Which sites in this industry do have a 'reputation for accuracy' then?  I would think a Wikiproject's concensus about this would bare some weight, but if it doeson't then I apologize.  Whether it's enough to prove notability will be determined by the rules.  Please refrain from writing on my user talk page Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I'd prefer the discussion be here, out in the open. Nihola (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails GNG—the current sources constitute trivial coverage of Young in unreliable sources like ainews.com and xbiz.com. That these sources are endorsed by WikiProject Pornography is beside the point, as has clearly explained. Goodvac (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO, lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources - only PR  Chzz  ► 20:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No pornbio, no general notability. I will note that "has her own blog" is now officially the worst keep rationale I have ever seen. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am constrained to agree with Tarc on this one. Which means there is a 100% chance this will be deleted.--Milowent • talkblp-r  03:45, 18 March 2011 (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.