Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nena Cherry


 * 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   redirect to Neneh Cherry.  MBisanz  talk 04:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nena Cherry

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

No significant reliable sources found, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. I've removed some content for WP:BLP reasons. Epbr123 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Neneh Cherry, likely search term. The current subject does indeed look to be unencyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the present article does not reflect this, Nena Cherry was at the centre of a rather major HIV scare within the industry some years back. I believe coverage of this can be found in AFN among other reliable sources within the genre. I think it might have actually been covered on CNN, even. 23skidoo (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Raven1977 (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Conditional keep If and only if proof of 23skidoo's claims are provided, then this person should meet WP:BIO generally. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - She was part of the HIV scare in 1997 but Luke Ford observed what I long suspected: Media ignored the scare in 1997 compared to 2004. Luke Ford himself is no reliable source to establish notability considering he charges her with being a prostitute now. Only another brief mention in Pornstar with John Stagliano stating that she tested positive for HIV before he did. This is probably also grounds for a deletion based on a BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not BLP1E because Cherry has gone on record herself as discussing this; unfortunately what are considered reliable sources within the porn industry don't necessarily get the same recognition at Wiki. Luke Ford is controversial, but one of the reasons why he's controversial is he isn't an industry mouthpiece, which actually makes him more of a reliable source than some others; his only problem is he's a blog and Wiki still has its head back in the 1990s when it comes to blogs being "unreliable sources". That's going to have to change now that we've had media such as CNN acknowledge that blogs, Twitter, and other "unreliable" sources came of age as source of record during the Mumbai attacks. Of course we need to follow BLP on any article, but the fact is for porn stars we need to expand our criteria beyond front-page stories in the New York Times and Forbes for these people. And as Ford observes, the 97 scare was ignored by the mainstream media -- that does not render it non-notable. 23skidoo (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * his only problem is he's a blog and Wiki still has its head back in the 1990s when it comes to blogs being "unreliable sources".  That's not definitely true.  From what you say, he's clearly an established expert on the subject.  Has anything he's written been published by third party publishers?  If so, his blog may be considered a reliable source. JulesH (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note that Luke Ford does not have a reputation for fact-checking and veracity as a porn gossipist and he has written that he has been sued for libel several times. He is definitely not considered an established expert on the industry he covers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * never mind; I just looked at his article. As author of a professionally published book on the industry, I'd say that according to the criteria at WP:V his blog is an acceptable source. JulesH (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jimbo Wales disagrees. Epbr123 (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That's odd. I found a economics paper mentioning her case here . It cites a bunch of AVN articles none of which are showing up on their database right now. It may be possible to wayback the works referenced and document it that way. I'm just not sure if that would be enough. nothing on gnews, and only 2 passing references to her currently showing up on avn.Horrorshowj (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just because an article isn't online doesn't disqualify it as a source. Depends, of course, upon the context in which it's being cited in the paper. 23skidoo (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: AVN has redone their database system at least twice that I know of, and neither time when they rolled out the change did they put in place any method to map old links to the new ones. The first time they redid it I wrote to them pointing out how their change broke our reference links to their site and they did belatedly put something, which seemed to work about maybe a third of the time. The second redo broke things even worse in that a number of articles simply seemed to disappear altogether from the site. I find the easiest way to find a specific article on AVN is to first plug the original URL into the Wayback Machine to get the full text of the article, then you can try and find the article on AVN since you can now search for specific terms. Tabercil (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to creating a new article about this subject with facts establishing notability from reliable sources. Right now there are, ummm, zero. I counted.  Luke Ford is a helluva funny guy who does good stuff, but his blogs are no more kosher as WP:RSs than bacon-wrapped shrimp is kosher for Passover because it has no leavened bread.  A Reliable Source is noted for its careful fact-checking and editorial quality control.  Luke is the paradigmatic opposite.  Read him.  You'll laugh; you'll cry. He's a blessing and he's a stitch.  But none of his blogs (and which ones does he even have a connection to any more?) is a Reliable Source for Wikipedia. David in DC (talk) 20:19, 5 December 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.