Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Mai


 * 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   speedy delete. Right now this satifies WP:CSD and WP:CSD/WP:BLP. Recreation with quality sources that shows how she meets the relavent notability guidelines is acceptable. NW ( Talk ) 03:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Tina Mai

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an attack page, and should be speedy deleted, but my db-atack tag was removed. There are zero sources for the claims made in the article, and zero Google hits for the person associated with the movie titles. Corvus cornix talk  00:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made sources for the page and both films mentioned in the article are small Vietnamese videos and may not be viewable on Google. YeaYourMom (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you have not. And even if the movies were real, which you have yet to prove, all that proves is that this person doesn't meet the WP:PORN notablity.   Corvus cornix  talk  01:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources that Excedia fertility pills exist, there are no reliable sources that the person she supposedly is in a relationship with exists. I can find nothing in Google for these people/things.   Corvus cornix  talk  01:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

After reading this article I do not find it as an attack page whatsoever. I look it as an informational biography of Tina Mai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.202.250 (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete but not as an attack page, which is "a page . . . that exists primarily to disparage its subject"; I do not believe that intentionally created this page to denigrate Mai. The article is written neutrally, but lacks reliable sources with significant coverage to establish notability. Thus I say delete on grounds of notability. Goodvac (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I do believe that it is an intentional attack page. And WP:BLP requires that we consider the damage that can be done to a person by claims made on Wikipedia.  This AfD, if it were to be allowed to stand, which it will not, without reliable sources, will run 7 days.  That gives plenty of time for this article to become the number one hit for the person with this name.  That is a severe violation of the BLP requirements.   Corvus cornix  talk  01:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As WP:BLPREMOVE requires, I've removed any violating content. In the BLP section for attack pages, to be classified as such, pages must be "unsourced and negative in tone". While the article is unsourced, it certainly cannot be construed to be cutting down the subject. Having done some more in-depth research, I conclude that it is fair to retag the article with speedy deletion criterion A7, as no reliable sources have surfaced to verify the existence of Mai. Goodvac (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So unsourced claims of a person being a porn actress is not an attack? Unsourced claims of her being in a relationship, with a person who is claimed to be Jewish with no reliable sources?  No Google hits whatsoever to even prove that this person exists?  In addition, this IP resolves to a site in Georgia, which is where this person supposedly lives/lived.   Corvus cornix  talk  01:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom as non-notable actress with lack of coverage. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as attack page. If it is correct, it fails notability requirements anyway, so there is no reason to do anything but play safe and 'avoid harm' on the basis that there is no evidence that it isn't false. (67.166.202.250, note that the article has been edited to remove unsourced negative content) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know why information from this article has been altered. If I am not mistaken stars of adult movies are accepted on this website. I believe this article is not as accurate as it's original version. YeaYourMom (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles on anyone or anything aren't accepted, unless they are based on verifiable sources. Yes, there are articles on porn stars, but there are specific criteria regarding notability for these, and a 'star' we cannot even find with Google certainly won't meet them: see WP:PORNSTAR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, that's the link I was looking for. I tried PORNACTOR, but that was a redlink. :)   Corvus cornix  talk  02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * delete Clearly not an attack page. It seems some people are trying to apply their personal POVs about the nature of pornography as somehow intrinsically negative, while not reading the article in any detail or AGFing about the writing. That said, the individual fails to meet notability criteria. I will change my mind if sources can be presented. At present this fails WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no personal problems with pornography. What I do have a problem with is the violation of BLP when unsourced claims are made that a person is a porn actor.   Corvus cornix  talk  02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And an unsourced claim someone is a porn star is a BLP problem not an attack page. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The criteria for deletion under G10 states the article "may include libel, legal threats, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced". Claiming someone is a porn star without including reliable sources falls under this criteria. I understand your contention that simply being a porn star does not = bad, however creating a page contending that the subject is a porn star without including any reliable sources for confirmation does fall within the definition of G10 deletion. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 03:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to cite all of sources for my information, but sadly every time I did it was then altered once again. Honestly how is this supposed to be cited if it is continuously modified in such a manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.202.250 (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You have not added any sources to the article. The article's creator, user:YeaYourMom, has added sources, though none of them reliable nor even apparently extant.  Does that mean that you, the IP editor from Floyd County, Georgia, where Tina Mai went to high school, are YeaYourMom?   Corvus cornix  talk  03:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not, technically, an "attack page", but without sources or specific details it's still defamation of anyone named "Tina Mai" who doesn't care to be called a porn star. Without sources for the importance of this individual, the article also fails speedy criterion A7. In any case, this is not the sort of article we should be retaining. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The original version of this article was an attack page. It is now a one-sentence assertion with no sources whatsoever. If none are produced quickly, this must be speedy deleted as a BLP violation. Jonathunder (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing I have seen in the page's edit history looks like it can be verified. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete' - there is no reason to keep this around while people discuss it. If sources appear (and they won't) it can be restored. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2011 (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.