Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Starr (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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Natalia Starr
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A BLP lacking in reliable secondary sources that that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Article sourced to non-independent industry materials or tabloids. Recently added Polska Times content appears to be citing to tabloid-like content as well. The best I could find was TMZ and Wikipedia does not generally cite to tabloids. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO as only two nominations are listed.

The notability tag has been contested and it may be best to resolve the issue via AfD. The first AfD in 2015 closed as no consensus, so this would be a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Should not be considered as a 'porn-only' notoriety in my humble opinion. Decent international notoriety as porn actress albeit without awards won; notable for having been a Penthouse Pet in diptych with her sister as well as for her being a Polish celebrity. Creating a page or redirect for her sister could therefore be useful. Nota: the 'listed nominations' mentioned above were oddly removed from the page before the debate was launched (see the article talk page).--DPD (t) 01:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep As sources show she's recognized in Poland as a rare Polish star in America. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - She's gained international notability and at present I see no valid reason for deleting, Meets PORNBIO and GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Starr has won no awards from what I can see. How does she meet PORNBIO? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep (Weak). Weak because of the dearth of independent sources. But she has twice been nominated for the "Best New Starlet," a criteria for notability (WP:ANYBIO). Less important, IMDb has a page on her. Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  05:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Two XBIZ nominations is nowhere near meeting WP:PORNBIO. Award nominations have been dropped from this SNG a long time ago. Besides, XBIZ is not the Nobel Prize :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you explain the SNG drop and why you think the award is not worth considering? We should discard all awards if the standard is the Nobel Prize. I am all ears. :)  Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  22:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest reviewing Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2014 and the discussion immediately beneath that RFC. One important reason was the increasingly outlandish proliferation of award categories and nominations within most categories. One incarnation of AVN's fan awards had categories with up to 100 nominees, and most categories from the more prominent awardgivers have more than a dozen nominees. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That link is all that I needed. My caveat was the "nominations" and according to the discussion in your link, the consensus is to remove this rung from WP:PORNBIO. It is an informative RfC discussion. I think that until the reform of the guidelines occurs, a link to it should appear in all of the AfD PORNBIO cases. Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  10:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. After reading the RfC linked and explained above. Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  10:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete. Uh, Polish celebrity - hardly. In addition to the English language article in a minor Polish-American newspaper, I checked Polish language coverage. All I see is an article in regional (provincial) newspaper (Kurier Lubelski (pl:Kurier Lubelski) ), a single paragraph at a news section of a bigger portal onet.pl, and a bunch of articles in tabloid Super Express. Borderline at best, and frankly, given that majority of coverage comes from tabloids, trade journals and a single local newspaper, well, I think we usually lean towards delete with no other arguments, and as the remaining question should be whether she fails PORNBIO - and nobody disputed the nominator's claim she is not.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No genuine international notoriety or celebrity. Such claims are based on unreliable tabloidery, including one source whose extensively referenced native-language Wikipedia article points out its reputation for "misconduct and disregard for the rules of journalistic ethics" and "the administration of untruth and creat[ion of] fictional material". What's happened here is fairly straightforward: a flurry of posts on social media claimed (without any credible evidence) that the winner of a quite minor beauty pageant ("Miss Polonia Manhattan") had become a porn performer. ( seems to be the starting point, apparently based only on visual resemblances in a few photos. Sources which base their reporting on social media aren't reliable, and can't support a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.   (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable pornographic performer. Our guidelines clearly say we should not create articles built on tabloid coverage, which this article would be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * delete we rightly expect better coverage from blps. Spartaz Humbug! 22:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails both PORNBIO and GNG. The claim of celebrity in their native Poland is very questionable as is the source that makes that claim. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets as R to list entry. SST  flyer  14:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - the Google News results show multiple articles about her in two popular newspapers in Poland, Super Express (se.pl) and Fakt (fakt.pl). This satisfies the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Fakt most certainly is not a reliable source; most of the Polish wiki article on it is devoted to detailing its journalistic failings. The Super Express page is more tabloidery, apparently based on social media postings and riddled with dubious claims -- "the first Polish woman in the porn business" -- not even remotely plausible. Sourcing like this can't sustain a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't rely on an outside wiki article to determine reputation as there is potential for coatracking, and I can't track the underlying sourcing (if there is any and whether it's from competition or an actual academic journal). Even the best of newspapers, most notably the New York Times, have had journalistic failings. I see these populist foreign papers that are in tabloid formats to be the equivalent of something like the New York Post which has never been outright rejected as a source for wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The arguments for deletion are too weak and based on subjective opinion rather than fact. Holanthony (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2016 (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.