Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Silver


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Stacy Silver

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails PORNBIO with nominations only and clearly falls far short of GNG Spartaz Humbug! 09:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete My sweeps of international media and entertainment-related media did not reveal sufficient sources to meet the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   16:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing admin; discard the above entry per WP:ITSNOTABLE, please. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * well known, many nominations to awards, 15 x interwiki - notable. Tarc, stop trolling votes by other users. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   08:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * None of that is a basis to judge notability. At least try to pretend there is some guideline behind your vote. Spartaz Humbug! 09:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr. Subtropical, you have evaded this question in the past but perhaps this time you'll try to answer it. Your claim of "many nominations to awards" is a reference to a now-deleted criteria of WP:PORNBIO.  Why do you keep basing AfD votes on criteria that are no longer valid?  You are not being "trolled", you are being challenged. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PORNBIO - these are only some criteria that should be taken into account, they are not compulsory to delete articles, even if the article does not meet WP:PORNBIO, there may be other arguments for leaving article. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   13:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is plain ol' WP:N, which the subject fails to meet as well as there appear to be no reliable, secondary sources that cover the subject in-depth. It's like what Donald Rumsfeld would say if he were a Wikipedian; "we judge notability by the guidelines that we have, not the guidelines that we wish we had". Tarc (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To remove articles - common sense (normal and this in Common sense) is needed. Mass issuing of articles to remove because they do not meet the requirements of WP:PORNBIO, not only is it destructive action but even cries out for vengeance from heaven. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   14:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Vengeance from heaven? Really? Articles without significant RS coverage are generally not notable. Porn biographies without sufficient RS acknowledgements of contributions to porn are not notable. The revised PORNBIO consensus states this. Yes, a purge was bound to happen, but most of these articles are not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with and  and others thinking tropically or supertropically.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Lulz, "vengeance from heaven". Screen-capping this for posterity.  And yes, articles have to meet certain criteria to remain in the project, otherwise we're just a free-for-all webhost. 15:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Tarc (talk)
 * According to the "certain criteria" in en.Wikipedia, author who born in 1992 in Somalia and wrote two books with poems (20 pages per book, the number of copies - irrelevant, even ten copies) are notable and Stacy Silver who well known in many countries in the world and played in 234 films and have seven award's nominations are not notable - it is absurd. No matter how stupid are some consensuses or criteria, if I think that the person is encyclopedic, I vote for keep. I have a right to this. This is the crux of the matter. I think that this person is encyclopedic, I have the right to vote and please respect my opinion even if you do not agree with it. Simply. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   15:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Multiple nominations is no longer a criteria of WP:PORNBIO, Fail #1. Fail #2,sources cited are announcements of aid nominations, i.e. press releases which are invalidated per WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - If only notability could be passed on looks eh!, Anyway as lovely as she is - she unfortunately, sadly and regrettably fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only award nominations. Lacks significant reliable source coverage to satisfy GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per, in particular, Tarc's accurate analysis and with an eye toward observing the threated "vengeance from heaven". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:34, 2 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.