Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niki Belucci


 * 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 no consensus. Opinions are divided, as they can in good faith be, over the merits of the sources, so... no clear outcome here.  Sandstein  18:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Niki Belucci

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails PORNBIO & GNG Spartaz Humbug! 00:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Didn't know such a thing like erotic dj existed but I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt that these Hungarian (and one Italian) sources that cover her are reliable for the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources above and below - Not sure how on earth I missed them!. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - For what said. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain how these sources count as RS? Does anyone actually know what kind of publications these are? Spartaz Humbug! 09:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that hard to look up some of the sources in wikipedia. Blikk,Večernji list, Nova TV (Croatia) Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - We don't use tabloids to establish notability of a topic. "Hungarian tabloid" sounds exotic, but if it's on the same level as ones we're more familiar with in the West eg. the Daily Mail and TMZ, then they are just as worthless. Tarc (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk   10:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - searching online does not provide any authoritative sources to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, no way that Večernji list or Dnevnik Nove TV could be marked as "tabloids", let alone to be paired to TMZ. Nor Genova Today or the musical website rave.cz appear to be close to tabloid journalism. The subject easily satisfies GNG as it received significant reliable coverage in established (mainstream) reliable sources. Also covered in established Italian news sources including TgCom24, Gazzetta di Reggio , Libero , and more briefly in Corriere del Mezzogiorno . Cavarrone 09:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * At best then it is a WP:BLP1E for being a "topless dj", so we're still on solid grounds for deletion. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No way it's a WP:BLP1E as well. I suspect you have not checked the sources, most of the articles covers her whole career, "being a topless dj" is not an event, it's just a profession, especially as "being a topless dj" is not something rare, looking at Google there are some hundreds of nude DJs around the world . The sources are not articles about "nude djing", and they generally do not cover the "nude dj" thing for more than a line, they cover her (specific) whole  figure and career (several of them starting from when she was a child). And anyway, according to some articles such as the Dnevnik Nove TV one, she actually does "standard" dj sets and she not make nude djing since 2011. WP:BLP1E has three requisites and the subject does not fulfil any of them, that's not even close to a BLP1E. Cavarrone  14:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If it was not for the toplessness, there would be no coverage. BLP1E protects us from having to host articles on every two-bit retarded "weird story of the day" that the media decides to cover.  Whether it's a girl who hiccups constantly or the guy who blows his head off with fireworks.  Add "topless" to any profession...news anchor, bowling, fry cook, etc...and a news story is virtually guaranteed. Sensational != notable. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a BLP1E as it fails each and every point of BLP1E, whatever your personal feelings, own interpretations or personal bias are, period. BLP1E protects us from having articles on low-profile individuals who are only mentioned in the context of a wider event in which they had not a significant role, eg. a civil victim of a bombing or one of the witnesses of the Lee Harvey Oswald killing. Belucci gets coverage plain and simple because she was not unknown before her DJ career and she managed to achieve some success in her actual profession, even leveraging her previous notoriety. Someone receiving international coverage about herself and her work in established news sources for eight years, touring in several countries and participating to international festivals as noted in such sources, is not the "weird story of the day". Competence is required and you cannot misuse policies because of your speculations and bias. And FIY, as pointed above, there are hundreds of nude/topless DJs who receive zero secondary coverage (and let alone thousand of pornographic actors or nude models who completely fail GNG in spite of showing way more than a topless). Cavarrone  15:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're to throw WP:CIR around, it is better aimed at editors, i.e. you, who misuse the Wikipedia as the Linkedin of Porn. I stand by the point that a person who is only receiving coverage for one peculiar thing is on solid BLP1E grounds.  If the closing admin disagrees then that is fine. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, fantastic, first you falsely claimed valid sources were tabloids, then you raised some bizarre and patently incorrect BLP1E claims and finally after being rebutted you just ended in personal attacks. You are just making some unimpressive wikilawyering because of your bias (i.e. someone who made pornography should be automatically non-notable) and then you should take a look at WP:CENSOR. Sorry but providing and checking sources (that do not cover only "one peculiar thing" as you keeps on claiming) and improving the article replacing unreliable sources with valid ones is not "misusing the Wikipedia as the Linkedin of Porn", your use of WP:CIR for such attack is just a further proof of your lack of competence and good faith. You just have no arguments other than your advocacy, but advocacy, either pro-something or anti-something, is not welcome on WP. Cavarrone 16:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have initiated many successful AfDs on that basis of that BLP1E standard, and seen many others deleted on such grounds. Sometimes it does not carry the day, we'll just have to see what happens here.  What this sounds like yet another "Old Hand"(tm) Wikipedian who is just out-of-step with the reality today XfDs, where the Rescue Squad dogma is long-gone. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have rebutted such poor arguments in a bunch of failed AfDs started on that basis of incorrect applications of BLP1E like yours. You have just not explained how the current subject fulfils any of the three points of  BLP1E and how the sources support such a BLP1E claim, so, good luck. The only fact you retrieved the BLP1E argument as a reserve after your "tabloid" argument failed explains a lot about its validity. Cavarrone  16:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you both User:Tarc and User:Cavarrone leave this discusiion now, and let other !voters opine. Kraxler (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The articles on her DJ appearances do not appear to be RS-quality, but instead appear to be uncritical workups of the subject's own promotional materials. For example, the Libero piece cited by Cavarrone describes Belucci as the only topless DJ in the world, which is clearly non-factual; several of these sources describe the subject's renowned career as a national-class gymnast in some detail, providing her real name, which she competed under -- but here seems to be no verifiability for such claims predating the subject's current career, strongly indicating the bio is, at best, kayfabe. The attractive female gymnast sure to reach the Olympics until her career was cut short by injuries is a common fake life story for Eastern European porn starlets, and nothing here supports it being anything other than inauthentic. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of journeyman rock bands, rappers, and other performers who get stories like these published in newspapers for the cities where they're appearing every weekend in the US, and for good reasons they aren't treated as notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments above. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   13:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per this google news search (which makes her pass GNG) bringing up lots of Hungarian sources, calling respectable newspapers tabloids because they are foreign is not convincing. Sources do not have to be in english.  Calling her two careers as a DJ (She DJs non topless too, more frequently non topless.) and porn one event is not supported by policy.  GuzzyG (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2015 (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.