Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randi Wright


 * 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Randi Wright

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No WP:Reliable sources. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Does not IMDB count as a fairly commonplace source for actresses? Are you stating that it does not have enough sources or what might I be missing in this proposal? Judicatus | Talk 19:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Film databases like IMDb and IAFD are not considered reliable sources for biographical information and they do not count as significant reliable source coverage for establishing notability. Right now, the article has nothing substantial or reliable. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any current Wikipedia policy that states that "IAFD is not considered a reliable source for biographical information" or that IAFD "does not count as significant reliable source coverage for establishing notability". The relevant portion of the Pornography Project's guidance states that the "Internet Adult Film Database...Their filmographies are considered reliable, but opinion is split on whether their biographical information is reliable". The real issue here is does this article satisfy PORNBIO. One could make an argument that Ms. Wright "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", but I have not done a whole lot of research on her. Guy1890 (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How has the IMDB been determined to not fit the description of a reliable source? I do not question that this article fails WP:N in this case but I am curious on the IMDB determination. Is it due to exceedingly expansive inclusitivity on the part of IMDB? In that case would it simply just be a case of non-establishment of notability requirement and not a reliability requirement being met? Judicatus | Talk 02:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm personally not a big fan of the Wikipedia guidance on using IMDB as a source, but the guidelines are reasonably clear on what they really mean. Guy1890 (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Was doing research on WP:RSN archives and discovered the controversy regarding IMDB as well. I appreciate the response Judicatus | Talk 00:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. There used to be content sourced to the semi-reliable Adult Video News, but a SPA named Randiwright16 removed it. I could not find other reliable sources in searches. AVN coverage alone is not enough for WP:GNG. Fails WP:PORNBIO without significant awards or nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per argument outlined by Gene93k above. Finnegas (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gene93k's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 3 August 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.