Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Joli (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Barkeep49's relist, no further arguments to demonstrate notability have occurred, and consensus has moved further towards deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Joli

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Justine Joli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} –(Viewlog · [1]):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Does not meet WP:GNG. --NL19931993 (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She appeared on the cover of the March 2002 issue of Hustler and High Society (USA) Holiday 2001, Vol. 26, Iss. 13. Perhaps I should have clarified "adult" publications, but major nonetheless. Ifnord (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being a titty mag covergirl isn't a criteria that is usable here, wp:porn bio was deprecated, and people like this now go by plain WP:ENTERTAINER as well as the general notability policy. Notability is not temporary, but when the criteria that an article was once judged on is no longer applicable, then we have to reevaluate this person under the present standards. Zaathras (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. Being "a titty mag covergirl isn't a criteria". Being on the cover of a major international publication is though. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When that major international publication is a titty mag, it actually isn't. I have perused Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion and more than a few of those red linked pages tried, and failed, to get by on a cover girl, Pet of the Month, criteria. Zaathras (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see we're trotting out logical fallacies now. This is fun! —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being on the cover of a phonographic magazine is not an inherently notable thing. One does not need fallacies to note that your assertion is unsupported by policy. Zaathras (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I agree with *some* of the “pruning” seen here, I think she meets GNG. I would be surprised if there wasn’t more available about her marijuana business. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note After the nominator of the last deletion discussion failed to get the article deleted, they went on a massive trimming spree, removing entire sections of the article. I intend to undo most of their removals, but to see a prior version before the trimming, see here. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would revert your edits as uncalled-for. The editor in question appears to have rightfully removed meaningless fluff about the subjuct's mother driving her to auditions, purported threeways, and her boy/girl preferences. You should also lay off calling others disgruntled editors, as well as casting aspersions on their motivations for editing an article. Zaathras (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would never cast aspersions. I'm flat out saying they were angry their proposed deletion did not succeed and effectively vandalized the article days after the AfD notice was removed. As to the rest, well, I'm not saying the article is perfect, but trimming entire sections doesn't work either. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If doubling-down on your personal attacks is what you feel is a persuasive argument to make, then Godspeed. Zaathras (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. In re "Things change over time" does not apply: the previous two closes occurred while PORNBIO was still in effect. With PORNBIO deprecated, there's nothing better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it meets those two, and PORNBIO is irrelevant as prior to those other closes she would have met the basic requirements. PORNBIO is a red herring here. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Enough coverage compiled from several reliable sources to satisfy the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. [2][3][4][5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability not being temporary is not applicable in this circumstance. In fact WP:NTEMP specifically says While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion." Those who are suggesting that there is notability would benefit from pointing to specific sourcing that points to notability per GNG or a SNG, otherwise as this is not a vote appropriate weight will mean this is closed as delete. Relisting to give those suggesting notability more time to demonstrate notability given previous AfDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The arguments about "past notability" are misplaced. What matters today is whether or not a subject meets the notability criteria of today, and these criteria do, of course, include past notability. In other words, if the subject per today's criteria has been notable in the past, it's worth an entry in Wikipedia, generally speaking.[note 1]
The criteria for porn stars have changed and now people under this category are supposed to meet the WP:NACTOR criteria. Our subject clearly does not. The sources offered as evidence of her notability amount to a New York article about someone else entirely and where subject is name-dropped once; an article in "industry" magazine AVN about her appearance in an Off-Broadway theatrical piece; two pieces, one in the French Vice and one in CNBC about legal pot-selling that mention our subject; and so on. We do not even have WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Locke Cole. Care to support the claim about her being "covered repeatedly in print publications as the primary topic of the publication" with some sources? I've dealt above with the previous attempt at presenting sources but there might be something out there still. And, as far as I'm concerned, I reject the allegation that her being a former porn star affects the way my suggestion went. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]

References

  1. ^ Per WP:N, [the fact that a topic] meets either the general notability guideline, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific [notability] guideline is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justine_Joli_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=931512834"