Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isis Love


 * 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. L Faraone  02:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Isis Love

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article offers no assertion of notability, the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO (even in its old version) and any other suitable SNG, even stretching them. Deprodded with the rationale that "subject has made contributions to the watersports genre of pornography, among other genres": possible, but this claim should be supported by reliable sources. Cavarrone 17:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nom is correct. Fails GNG with only passing mentions in semi-reliable sources like XBiz. Fails PORNBIO with just a single scene-related award nomination. Any unique contributions to porn per PORNBIO criterion #2 need to be acknowledged by reliable sources. I don't see any. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Gene93k. Unsourced "unique contribution" claims carry no weight, and their abuse of late makes me wonder if that language should be removed from PORNBIO, since the necessary sourcing is likely to satisfy the GNG as well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Different issues. All criteria of PORNBIO and of any other SNG need to be sourced, period, it's a question of verifiability, not of general notability. A person could be referred by an encyclopedia or by some scholars as the historic initiator of a pornographic genre despite not clearly meeting GNG criteria. Cavarrone 22:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. All the above are correct. Statements of 'unique contributions' are not self-authoritating; without the proper sources, this page is no better than speculation or fanon. Besides, subject matter is unsuitable for a civilised portal of learning and education such as this. CavalierOne 08:47, 01 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.209.174 (talk)
 * Keep - FYI, I've again updated the article in question a bit. Ms. Love has, IMHO, "made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre", specifically the watersports genre - which is a niche market (and not my personal cup of tea) for sure, in her directorial work for Kink.com, which seems to generate more web-based content than feature-length adult films. As for "has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", it's difficult to tell at this point what the ultimate impact the documentary film (Public Sex, Private Lives) that Ms. Love is featured in will have, since that film appears to have just been released within the last month or so. If the article in question here was created later rather than now, it might be easier to judge the impact of this recent documentary, but here we unfortunately are in any event. As for any unsubstantiated "abuse" claims and/or curiosity in whether "that language should be removed from PORNBIO", well...I'd expect that kind of thinking from a well-known deletionist that's unfortunately chosen to focus most (if not all) of their efforts on the Pornography Project in what appears up to this point to be a big case of I don't like it. Guy1890 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Fails WP:GNG & WP:PORNBIO, (Doesn't she look pretty!)   →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  14:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete under PORNBIO and GNG as noted above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2013 (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.