Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Shine


 * 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. It seems the general consensus suggests this individual is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandra Shine

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for that very reason. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As Epbr123 said. Kevin (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep . WP:PORNBIO is just a guideline. If it is passed, it ensures the actor notable. Viceversa is not true: the subject can be notable even if the guideline is not passed. In this case the number of commercially produced movies in which the actress had a role, as seen in the IAFD link for example, plus her being a cover girl for many magazines, means that she passes WP:ENTERTAINER. If WP:PORNBIO is at odds with WP:ENTERTAINER, it is a WP:PORNBIO problem, not an article problem. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ENTERTAINER states that a performer must have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". How does Sandra Shine meet this? Epbr123 (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ENTERTAINER I knew was "significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I've seen now the wording has changed, but it seems a relatively recent edit (6th September). see diff. Under the current wording, I understand it fails, but how do we deal with such a moving target? Anyway, even if each one of the film is not particularly notable by itself, the size of her filmography, made with prominent studios, makes her quite clearly notable. She's also been Pet of the Month twice, as one editor correctly remembers below. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From numerous past discussions, the size of a porn stars filmography is clearly not enough to make them notable. Epbr123 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, quite counterintuitive. May I have a link to such discussions? Thanks! --Cyclopia (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:BIO: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion." In other words: IAFD and other databases build Fankensteins. Also per WP:BIGNUMBER. Algébrico (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep She is a very prominent Hungarian porn model. Machomedia, the hungarian porn trade journal (both English and Hungarian versions), routinely cover her. Machomedia is considered a reliable source for coverage over Budapest-based productions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Her coverage on Machomedia seems quite trivial. These are the only articles about her on the English version:, , , and they don't contain much encyclopedic content. Epbr123 (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that the English version is not a translated mirror of the Hungarian version (or does not seem like it to me) and that there is much more content overall (without regard to Shine) on the Hungarian version. I would like some Hungarian editors to look into this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep having been Penthouse Pet of the Month twice should establish notability alone. Wefa (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No intersections from reliable independent secondary sources (see: WP:FRANKIE). Being Penthouse Pet of the Month once or twice is only a trivial information and probably supported only by trivial sources. If there is no repercussion from independent reliable secondary sources about her being Penthouse Pet of the Month, it means nothing. Not notable per WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." (independent source is by definition more than one) and "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Algébrico (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any support for the hypothesis that we're witnessing a case of WP:FRANKIE? I understand that's what can happen from careless use of sources, but is it the case? --Cyclopia (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Being Penthouse Pet of the Month once or twice is only a trivial information... If there is no repercussion from independent reliable secondary sources about her being Penthouse Pet of the Month, it means nothing.... independent source is by definition more than one..." ...without this uniquely Wikipedian form of illiterate literalism Deletionism could not flourish... Dekkappai (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dekkappai, as much as I can agree with you on how debatable are the article inclusion/deletion criteria used by AfD proponents, please stay into WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. There is no need to heat the debate, especially without bringing arguments. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. She doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. Sources aren't there. "Commercially produced" isn't something I recall seeing in ENTERTAINER. So, even if it was recently removed, I think it was probably added not too long before that. Moving target or not, this one doesn't qualify now. Lara  16:40, 21 September 2009 (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.