Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helena Karel

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. Despite the poor overall quality of the discussion, the "keep" side performed distinctly worse here: the opinion by NigelHowells is disregarded as incomprehensible, and that by Subtropical-man for making no argument. Only NotYetAnotherEconomist makes a valid argument for retention, but they are clearly outnumbered by the other participants. Even if their opinions must be given less weight because they don't address the source found by NotYetAnotherEconomist, it's rather clear that this one opinion, and one apparently reliable source, can't turn the tide of numbers and notability requirements. If the sourcing situation ever noticeably improves, the article may be recreated.  Sandstein  17:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Karel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I proposed this article for deletion about two weeks ago, but removed my proposal because the author did provide some primary sources that seemed to establish the subject's notability. However, the author has failed to back this information up with reliable secondary sources. Λeternus ^(talk) 07:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Λeternus ^(talk) 07:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Λeternus ^(talk) 08:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Λeternus ^(talk) 08:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 12:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you care to explain why? --Λeternus ^(talk) 18:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - She's very nice but we don't keep articles based on looks sadly!, Anyway per nom no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep she is notable. See for example this interview: http://www.20min.ch/ro/entertainment/people/story/12637558 NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails PORNBIO as none of her award wins are "well-known and significant". No signifigant coverage to suggest she passes GNG. Finnegas (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • about PORNBIO, i added about the third criteria. It was deleted (twice). You can see it on helena karel's talk page.Sg7438 (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have written above, you provided a single primary source (information from her website) where it was written that Karel had appeared in various magazines, but you did not provide reliable secondary sources to confirm this information. Note that even if this information from her website stayed in the article, it wouldn't change anything. Reliable secondary sources would still be needed. --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the begining you just needed to delete that page... Bravo ! Sg7438 (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Finnegas' accurate analysis. There are virtually no reliably sourced claims in the article, and none supporting notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : HK is a very famous actress in Europe and France : her enlish page contains primary and secondary sources : just check it.Sg7438 (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Having checked the page I can confirm that the sources provided are not sufficient to pass WP:GNG as they do not amount to signifigant coverage in reliable sources. Finnegas (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You may judged them insufficients but they are presents (there's more secondary sources than primary)... Sg7438 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: immediately notable relating to autism, as she gives to causes on this area. --NigelHowells (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability guidelines for porn actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 17 August 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.