- 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 redirect to Adidas Yeezy#Clothing though without a strong consensus for this particular outcome. There was minimal justification available for keeping the article in this discussion, with other participants split between deletion and a redirect to a list with no further information - so the late merge by BD2412 seems to offer the best method of removing the article that lacks notability while still maintaining sourced content that a reader might be looking for.
The consensus here can therefore be summarised as "remove the article, without a strong consensus as to exactly how" - and now the presence of merged content generally requires this edit history to be maintained somewhere. If there's concerns that this redirect is a little surprising to some searchers, then that may be a separate discussion. ~ mazca talk 14:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Lela Star
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lela Star ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unclear that she passes the GNG or any other WP:BIO criteria given the limited coverage in reliable sources. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 02:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep. It is not apparent that any kind of WP:BEFORE was done, but the subject gets nearly 9000 Google News hits, so it seems unlikely.BD2412 T 03:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC) On further review, there is not enough of intersection between coverage that is in depth and coverage that is reliable to make this worth arguing over. Therefore, redirect toList of Penthouse Pets#2010–2019 (unless details of the ad campaign are added to Adidas Yeezy)Adidas Yeezy#Clothing, to which the details have now been copied. BD2412 T 04:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Can you provide specific links to reliable sources that can overcome trivial coverage or WP:BLP1E? I saw a whole lot of clickbait in my previous search. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 03:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- A raw Google search is not useful for determining notability. In this case, most of the first page of hits are unreliable sources like International Business Times and trivial mentions. Please identify the ones that that provide non-trivial, reliable secondary source coverage to satisfy
WP:BASIC.
• Gene93k (
talk)
03:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with the criteria for inclusion, which I was helping create before you nice fellows showed up. BD2412 T 04:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 03:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 03:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 03:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 03:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable model with insufficient coverage to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - The last name "star" clouds the search results with other
stars named Lela, etc. I am willing to give this individual working in a taboo field (which further obfuscates the search engine) the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps someone else has a methodology that will allow them to have better luck sifting through the source pit and come up with something substantial. —
Godsy (
TALK
CONT)
06:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- A wholly invalid keep rationale that should not be considered by the closing admin. "Her last name is a common word, I can't find stuff, surely it must be out there!" C'mon... Zaathras ( talk) 16:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Interviews, light coverage of modeling work for allegedly bearing a resemblance to a Kardashian, but said coverage is about the "nude Kardashians" as a general topic rather than of this subject specifically. 1 of ~600 Penthouse Pets of the Month, not significant.
Zaathras (
talk)
16:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- I would wager that the subject is somewhat more significant than the typical Penthouse Pet of the Month, which I think is borne out by there having been nearly a quarter million page views since the creation of the page. That is why I now favor redirecting the title, so that traffic will continue to be captured to some degree. BD2412 T 17:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect per BD2412; does not really seem like there's enough coverage for an article in its own right, but no reason for the subject not to be mentioned in another article (the fact of this person existing certainly is not in dispute). jp× g 22:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleteon the basis that no one has been able to find multiple in-depth sources which provide significant coverage. The only 'keep' argument was on the basis of WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST which is an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. I don't really think the redirect is particularly useful, and wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collector of information, so i vote delete. Apples&Manzanas ( talk) 15:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)- An alternative would be to merge the content on Yeezy Season 6 in to Adidas Yeezy#Clothing, which mentions Season 6 but does not contain details of the well-reported ad campaign. The presence of this article subject, along with that of Paris Hilton, is a key point mentioned in such coverage. BD2412 T 17:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @
Johnpacklambert,
Zaathras, and
Apples&Manzanas: I have now merged the relevant content into
Adidas Yeezy#Clothing. I believe the title can now be speedily redirect there, per the GFDL.
BD2412
T
17:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hm...that redirect seems a bit
WP:ASTONISHING to me, no?
Apples&Manzanas (
talk)
17:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Why would it be astonishing for the name of a model to redirect to the most prominent advertising campaign featuring that model, and for which news articles on the campaign generally mention the model? In any case, the original edit history of the is required to be maintained somewhere under the GFDL. If not here, it can be moved to a subpage of
Talk:Adidas Yeezy.
BD2412
T
17:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Admittedly I know nothing about how the WP:GFDL works so I'll support the Redirect. Apples&Manzanas ( talk) 17:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Why would it be astonishing for the name of a model to redirect to the most prominent advertising campaign featuring that model, and for which news articles on the campaign generally mention the model? In any case, the original edit history of the is required to be maintained somewhere under the GFDL. If not here, it can be moved to a subpage of
Talk:Adidas Yeezy.
BD2412
T
17:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hm...that redirect seems a bit
WP:ASTONISHING to me, no?
Apples&Manzanas (
talk)
17:23, 18 January 2021 (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.
- 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 redirect to Adidas Yeezy#Clothing though without a strong consensus for this particular outcome. There was minimal justification available for keeping the article in this discussion, with other participants split between deletion and a redirect to a list with no further information - so the late merge by BD2412 seems to offer the best method of removing the article that lacks notability while still maintaining sourced content that a reader might be looking for.
The consensus here can therefore be summarised as "remove the article, without a strong consensus as to exactly how" - and now the presence of merged content generally requires this edit history to be maintained somewhere. If there's concerns that this redirect is a little surprising to some searchers, then that may be a separate discussion. ~ mazca talk 14:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Lela Star
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lela Star ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unclear that she passes the GNG or any other WP:BIO criteria given the limited coverage in reliable sources. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 02:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep. It is not apparent that any kind of WP:BEFORE was done, but the subject gets nearly 9000 Google News hits, so it seems unlikely.BD2412 T 03:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC) On further review, there is not enough of intersection between coverage that is in depth and coverage that is reliable to make this worth arguing over. Therefore, redirect toList of Penthouse Pets#2010–2019 (unless details of the ad campaign are added to Adidas Yeezy)Adidas Yeezy#Clothing, to which the details have now been copied. BD2412 T 04:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Can you provide specific links to reliable sources that can overcome trivial coverage or WP:BLP1E? I saw a whole lot of clickbait in my previous search. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 03:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- A raw Google search is not useful for determining notability. In this case, most of the first page of hits are unreliable sources like International Business Times and trivial mentions. Please identify the ones that that provide non-trivial, reliable secondary source coverage to satisfy
WP:BASIC.
• Gene93k (
talk)
03:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with the criteria for inclusion, which I was helping create before you nice fellows showed up. BD2412 T 04:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 03:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 03:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 03:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 03:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable model with insufficient coverage to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - The last name "star" clouds the search results with other
stars named Lela, etc. I am willing to give this individual working in a taboo field (which further obfuscates the search engine) the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps someone else has a methodology that will allow them to have better luck sifting through the source pit and come up with something substantial. —
Godsy (
TALK
CONT)
06:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- A wholly invalid keep rationale that should not be considered by the closing admin. "Her last name is a common word, I can't find stuff, surely it must be out there!" C'mon... Zaathras ( talk) 16:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Interviews, light coverage of modeling work for allegedly bearing a resemblance to a Kardashian, but said coverage is about the "nude Kardashians" as a general topic rather than of this subject specifically. 1 of ~600 Penthouse Pets of the Month, not significant.
Zaathras (
talk)
16:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- I would wager that the subject is somewhat more significant than the typical Penthouse Pet of the Month, which I think is borne out by there having been nearly a quarter million page views since the creation of the page. That is why I now favor redirecting the title, so that traffic will continue to be captured to some degree. BD2412 T 17:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect per BD2412; does not really seem like there's enough coverage for an article in its own right, but no reason for the subject not to be mentioned in another article (the fact of this person existing certainly is not in dispute). jp× g 22:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleteon the basis that no one has been able to find multiple in-depth sources which provide significant coverage. The only 'keep' argument was on the basis of WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST which is an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. I don't really think the redirect is particularly useful, and wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collector of information, so i vote delete. Apples&Manzanas ( talk) 15:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)- An alternative would be to merge the content on Yeezy Season 6 in to Adidas Yeezy#Clothing, which mentions Season 6 but does not contain details of the well-reported ad campaign. The presence of this article subject, along with that of Paris Hilton, is a key point mentioned in such coverage. BD2412 T 17:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @
Johnpacklambert,
Zaathras, and
Apples&Manzanas: I have now merged the relevant content into
Adidas Yeezy#Clothing. I believe the title can now be speedily redirect there, per the GFDL.
BD2412
T
17:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hm...that redirect seems a bit
WP:ASTONISHING to me, no?
Apples&Manzanas (
talk)
17:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Why would it be astonishing for the name of a model to redirect to the most prominent advertising campaign featuring that model, and for which news articles on the campaign generally mention the model? In any case, the original edit history of the is required to be maintained somewhere under the GFDL. If not here, it can be moved to a subpage of
Talk:Adidas Yeezy.
BD2412
T
17:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Admittedly I know nothing about how the WP:GFDL works so I'll support the Redirect. Apples&Manzanas ( talk) 17:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Why would it be astonishing for the name of a model to redirect to the most prominent advertising campaign featuring that model, and for which news articles on the campaign generally mention the model? In any case, the original edit history of the is required to be maintained somewhere under the GFDL. If not here, it can be moved to a subpage of
Talk:Adidas Yeezy.
BD2412
T
17:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hm...that redirect seems a bit
WP:ASTONISHING to me, no?
Apples&Manzanas (
talk)
17:23, 18 January 2021 (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.