Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celeste Star (3rd nomination)

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. → Call me Hahc21 21:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste Star

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No longer passes PORNBIO and completely lacks the reliable sourcing required for a BLP. The only award win is a minor scene related effort which does not overcome the failure to pass GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is joke? A few months ago there was a vote and discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celeste Star (2nd nomination), with 100% votes for keep. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10 months is more then a few and PORNBIO has changed since then. Do you have an RSs or policy based arguments to put forward?Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste Star meets the requirements of PORNBIO. Well-known porn star, on the covers of famous magazines, won and 18 nominated. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations don't count anymore. Scene awards don't count anymore and the award needs to be a well known and significant industry award anyway. The Galaxy Awards are not notable enough to have their own wikipedia article - which probably says it all. Being on the cover of a famous magazine hasn't been a notability standard in my time. Its years since appearing as a penthouse pet has counted. Perhaps you should review PORNBIO because your recollection of what it says doesn't match the current version that has wide community consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Its years since appearing as a penthouse pet has counted." I'm sorry, where is the discussion that concludes being a Penthouse Pet doesn't count anymore? (Whether it counts on its own seems to be debatable, but in conjunction with other things isn't). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And you have a policy to support that argument do you? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policy, no, but when this was brought up in the previous discussion, no one objected...and that aspect of PORNBIO hasn't changed since. Do you have anything to support your argument besides your own opinion? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spartaz, even if (as amended) does not meet the point 1, meets the requirements of PORNBIO point 3. Hustler and Penthouse is enough. Also (to Hustler and Penthouse), there is won and 18 nominations (meet the previous requirements). Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2) 18:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? That's ridiculous. Hustler and Penthouse are not mainstream media. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, I regret to report that Celeste there was no in CNN ;) You have far too high expectations for porn stars. Take it easy :) Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2) 18:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Let's take an honest look at the deletion history here. The article was unanimously deleted in 2012 [1], despite her having been a Penthouse Pet, a Hustler cover model, etc. Because, even back then, there was an established consensus that such claims didn't contribute significantly to notability. The article was recreated and kept a year later, only because the subject had received two nonscene nominations in the same year, since PORNBIO had been revised to eliminate the "multiple year" requirement for nonscene nominations. Later in 2013, the community discussed PORNBIO at great length and removed nominations (scene or nonscene) from PORNBIO entirely, by an "overwhelming consensus". If you accept that overturning the 2012 deletion was OK because the community changed PORNBIO, you should accept overturning the 2013 keep because the community changed PORNBIO again. It's a matter of respect for community consensus, rather than going on at tendentious length about liking an outdated standard better. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment I see no WP:BEFORE here. I don't see anything about the 15 foreign-language wikis, the "What links here" that will be turned into red links, or evidence of searches including Google books and Google scholar. Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment The topic has received attention as a result of appearing on the cover of Hustler, and has received long-term recognition from having been a Penthouse Pet in 2005, plus a prodigious career with hundreds of movie credits. The basic concept of wp:notability is the attention that a topic attracts from the world at large, and one thing we know about porn stars is that they attract the attention of the world at large. So as usual with pornstar articles we have massive wp:notability. IMO, the real problem for Wikipedia with pornstar articles is WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you wrong. In 2012 in article nothing written about Penthouse Pet and Hustler, in 2012 article was incomplete. And also, Penthouse, Hustler and Playboy, CKM are most popular erotic magazines in the world. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Celeste is very well-known, instantly recognizable, and is extremely popular in the industry and amoung fans. That's really the most important thing. Winning an award is nice, of course, but does not necessarily make them popular or well-known - which is a better standard than an award. Glenn Francis (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO's "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" criteria because she was in the main cast of the adult film Revenge of the Petites. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Being "in the main cast of" (whatever that means) is clearly not the same as "starring" in a film; the character Celeste Star plays isn't even mentioned in the official summary of the film, a clear signal of the lesser importance of her role. And there are no independent, reliable sources characterizing this video as iconic, groundbreaking, or blockbuster, as required. Note that in AFDs involving similar claims of notability, eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Rhomberg, substantial independent sourcing clearly addressing that point was provided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Northern Antarctica (₵) 00:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hullaballoo Wolfowitz clearly demonstrates that she fails WP:PORNBIO's "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" criteria. Finnegas (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally fails the guidelines for notability for performers in pornography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fully agree with Rebecca1990.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.