1526 in Ireland ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I don't think the closer noticed that there was an option to close it as a merge. It could have closed as a merge, but the user claimed it could've been discussed outside of AFD, which I have confusing, because AFD's closed with merging happen all the time. The consensus asked for a merge, but it was closed as keep. Koridas ^talk? 16:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I make closes like that all the time. The big decision that needs to be made at AfD is whether to delete the page, because that's the only option which requires an admin to carry out. Once you've got to the point where you know you're not going to delete it, if it's not clear what to do next, asking the participants to continue the discussion on the talk pages makes a lot of sense. That's exactly what User:Premeditated Chaos did here. BTW, it's strongly recommended that you discuss issues with the closing admin before opening a DRV. My guess is had you done that, she would have explained this basically the same as I've done here. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There's no consensus to delete. It's a bit frustrating for those who want to merge, but there's no consensus between merging and keeping even though there's a clear consensus not to delete. A merge discussion on the talk page is the next step here, and I don't think DRV can give a specific remedy in this instance. SportingFlyer T· C 18:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I don't believe that a 'keep' AfD blocks a merge. The important thing is that the page wasn't deleted. pburka ( talk) 18:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Whether or not to merge can be discussed outside of AfD. Use the article talk page. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• RoySmith has essentially explained my point of view here - once there is a consensus to not delete the content, there is no need to keep the AfD open. Further discussion about whether or not to merge can be conducted outside of AfD (and in this case, should probably be expanded to consider the entire series of "152X in Ireland" articles). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Ultimately, AFDs can either be closed as delete or not-delete. If an AFD is closed as any of the not-delete outcomes, anyone desirous of changing between that and another not-delete outcome can take forward their suggestions on the article talk page, or just WP:BB and get on with it. Endorse. Stifle ( talk) 08:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse If it isn't endorsed, it's going to change to non-consensus. Keep doesn't preclude a later merge. Nfitz ( talk) 19:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse a proper no consensus close Lightburst ( talk) 21:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

RevSpace ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Article created 17 September 2019‎ by puppet of User:Elfinshadow who has been banned since Feb 2019 for adverising/promo (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dwaro/Archive. No significant contents contribution besides the creator. It was kept in the AfD whose consensus building process was disrupted by Dwaro; and an account that mysteriously came out of nearly a two year hibernation and went right back to hibernation as soon as the AfD was closed. A fair consensus was not achieved, because an input that should not have been taken into account was considered. Article should be deleted as an article created by banned user under a ban evading alternate account, because a SPI that identified a connection at a later time concludes the article was created while the ban was in effect. Graywalls ( talk) 08:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Graywalls ( talk) 08:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Wrong venue. The closure of the AFD was appropriate based on the information available at the time. If we are now saying that the article creator was banned, then it should be tagged {{ db-g5}}. If you are desirous of deletion for some other reason, as the AFD was 6 months ago it is appropriate to raise a new AFD. Stifle ( talk) 09:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• On further reflection, per WP:WINAB I have gone ahead and deleted this article. Stifle ( talk) 09:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Lana Rhoades ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Lana Rhoades is the #1 most popular/watched pornographic actress according to multiple sources. Several pornographic actors that are less notable than Rhoades have their own articles, so she should also have her own instead of being a redirect. Momo824 ( talk) 05:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• If you want Wikipedia to have an article on this person you'll need to come up with evidence she meets the notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 06:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Deleted by consensus consistent with the usual criteria. If you want to challenge that decision, you need evidence useful for Wikipedia. See the advice at WP:THREE. You could give the answer at Talk:Lana Rhoades, or in draftspace, or in your userspace. DRV is for challenging the process: the prior process of three AfDs and two DRVs looks quite sound. If you want to argue the facts, you need sources, see WP:THREE. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• According to WP:ENT, the following guidelines must be met:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

She meets guideline #1 due to her performances in films created by several of the leading pornographic porn studios, which have led to multiple wins and nominations of the most prestigious awards in pornography, including what has been called the "Oscars of Porn". ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}

She meets guideline #2 because she is the most popular porn star on Pornhub, with over 345 million views on her videos in 2019. ^[6] Along with her popular videos, Rhoades' large fanbase is also apparent in her following of 10 million users on Instagram. ^[7]

She meets guideline #3 because she has been one of the biggest faces of porn in recent history and has created a large online empire surrounding pornography, among the first in the adult industry to do so. ^{[8] [9] [10]} Momo824 ( talk) 10:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• I think there's probably enough there to write a new article. I can't tell for sure, but I'm unsure the 3rd discussion should have been closed as a speedy, too. Would allow a draft or refund to anyone who wants to work on it. SportingFlyer T· C 18:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - per abundance of sources by Momo824. Koridas ^talk? 18:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• endorse the Forbes article doesn't mention her in the text and the other sources are either not rs, clickbait or otherwise not suitable to hang a BLP on. The daily Star is a tabloid for those not familiar with UK papers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Every time a given article comes back to DRV with low quality sources presented, it becomes that much more unlikely it'll ever be restored. — Cryptic 21:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

See my reply to Spartaz for why these sources aren't low quality. Momo824 ( talk) 03:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Spartaz, I included the Forbes article to back up the “Oscars of Porn” statement, not to provide any information on Rhoades. How about the rest of the sources? Momo824 ( talk) 22:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Pornbio was deprecated in great part because these awards have no value in determining notability and including a good source that does not actually mention the subject is a long standing trick used by unscrupulous editors to sway people to the idea that the sources are better then they are. I'm not suggesting that this was your plan but hopefully my comment will help you see why that was a bad tactic. As for the rest of the sources? If I may be blunt? They are shit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

What makes them shit? They follow all the rules of WP:RELIABLE and WP:BLPSOURCES. They contain enough information so that no original research would need to be conducted. Pornhub, AVN, IAFD, and XBIZ are four of the most reliable sources for information on the adult industry and have been used as references in newspaper articles, books, and research studies on numerous occasions. ^{[1] [2] [3]} Along with those sources, Daily Star and Inquisitr are also pretty reliable sources that don't focus primarily on the adult industry and have also been used as references on numerous occasions. ^{[4] [5]} If by shit, you mean not mainstream media, then I believe you are incorrect because, for obvious reasons, the mainstream media isn't very likely to publish an article on a porn star.

*I was unable to include the Google Scholar reference for Pornhub because its website is whitelisted on Wikipedia, but just search the website URL on Google Scholar to see the results. Momo824 ( talk) 02:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse for a start porn industry awards aren't generally seen as making someone notable. The notability guidelines used to say that they suggested you were likely to be notable but that was removed because it wasn't a good standard. The trouble with comparing them to the Oscars is that the Oscars get massive amounts of coverage in the mainstream media and porn industry awards get little to none. Instagram followers etc do not make someone notable either. Wikipedia does expect particularly good sources for biographies of living people. Tabloid journalism, Twitter etc are not acceptable sources here at all, so you're left with a few profiles on porn industry websites, which I suspect will not go down well at AfD. Hut 8.5 06:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and list at WP:DEEPER. Stifle ( talk) 08:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • It has come to my attention that the AFD was closed after less than the requisite 7-day period. This is a process irregularity and therefore the outcome must be overturn and relist for a full seven days. Stifle ( talk) 15:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• I'm proud of deletion review's role in downgrading PORNBIO, and I've consistently argued for pornstar articles to be deleted, but I think there's a lot of moving parts to this one. Taking the various discussions that we're reviewing in order:

The "delete" outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades was restored and relisted after DRV#1 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 September 1; the relisted AfD was re-closed as delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades (2nd nomination). I endorse the second close as it was clearly correct at that time.

Then someone re-created it and there was a third AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades (3rd nomination). I'm not overjoyed about that third AfD, being that it was closed as "speedy delete" by RHaworth, exactly one calendar month before the Arbcom case about him was opened and exactly two calendar months before he was desysopped for, and I quote Arbcom exactly, "repeated misuse" of the deletion tool. I would endorse it as a G4, but looking at the logs, that's not actually what RHaworth did. As far as I can see, he wrote "speedy delete" in his closing statement and then he protected the redirect instead of deleting the title (!).

Then, after all these events, the Daily Star, which is a British tabloid, published this. As a Brit myself I'll happily confirm that the Daily Star is not a reliable source for anything that relates to politics, economics, science or medicine. But it's maybe arguably a reliable source for what seems to be an uncontroversial statement about popular culture. Is it a reliable source for the claim that this young lady's the world's most-searched porn star? I find myself thinking that this gets us over the bar for G4 and into the territory that we should refer to RSN to decide.

Lana Rhoades is not shielded by BLP. She's not a person, she's a fictional character. (The performer who plays her would be shielded by BLP.) We're not dealing with any kind of presumption to delete here.

I think the very minimum intervention for DRV here is to overturn the outcome of AfD#3 to the "redirect" that actually happened. I'd favour doing that and referring the nominator to RSN for a consensus about that Daily Star article.— S Marshall  T/ C 13:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• RHaworth actually did delete a 30-revision recreation here. Nonadmins can see some evidence of that in the logs; the part that's a bit confusing is that he then restored most of the revisions related to the redirect created between AFD1 and DRV1. For admins, the versions you're comparing are 20:43, 16 September 2019 immediately before the end of AFD2 and 04:30, 1 December 2019 immediately before the most recent deletion.
  RHaworth did make many questionable deletions and I gave evidence at the arbitration case. But I don't think this is one of them. To the extent we're reviewing the G4 deletion related to AFD3, I endorse that; the new article, while textually unrelated to the old ones, was inferior in both content and referencing. The only genuinely new content was the inclusion of a partial filmography (not an improvement) and the actress's real name (probably not a good idea). — Cryptic 15:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Oh, I apologise. That's not very transparent from what the logs show me; shows me that he deleted four revisions, restored five revisions, and then protected the page. OK, I suppose I endorse the AfD that RHaworth speedily closed based on the sockpuppet, John Pack Lambert and the one editor whose view I think deserves full weight. Still think the subsequent Daily Star source gets it past G4 though.— S Marshall  T/ C 19:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Question What the h&^l? User:S Marshall says: "Lana Rhoades is not shielded by BLP. She's not a person, she's a fictional character. (The performer who plays her would be shielded by BLP.)" It appears that the August 2016 Pet of the Month is listed as Lana Rhoades. That would appear to be the name of a human. If this is a fictional character, who is the actress playing her? What the H@!l? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• The Star says the performer's name is Amara Maple.— S Marshall  T/ C 17:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment to User:S Marshall - A living person who uses a stage name is a living person. If there is some other argument, I do not understand it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• OK. Was that the only part of my analysis that you disagreed with?— S Marshall  T/ C 23:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - the AFD was only open for less than 24 hours, the only delete comment was from a user whose competence in AFDs is highly questionable and shouldn't hold any weight. And numerous sources have been provided. DRV isn't the forum to be discussing sources - it's AFD, and that didn't happen. Nfitz ( talk) 19:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I would agree with several of the points being made by S Marshall above. There are a few aspects to this:

• The "Speedy Delete" close was probably flawed. For this to be a G4, RH needed to confirm that there were no new refs added since the 2nd nomination, which he did not (if new refs had been added since the last AfD, it is not a G4). Doesn't help that the nom, NL19931993, was shown subsequent to the AfD to be a sock. Probably enough for it to be re-listed on technical grounds.
• In terms of notability, S Marshall's reference is the best I have seen yet, and while the Daily Star is not a good source for most things, for celebrities etc., it's huge distribution gives it some credibility. Similarily, here is La Opinión, the largest Spanish-language paper in the US with regular coverage on her [1]. It does seem that she currently is a major figure in porn.
• PORNBIO was created because normal RS did not cover porn actors (stigma-issues), and therefore major porn industry awards could instead be used. The community decided to depreciate PORNBIO and now require porn actors to generate the same RS as normal actors for notability. I suspect she is getting close to "normal notability", but it is still borderline.

There is enough here to overturn and relist. Britishfinance ( talk) 12:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• overturn speedy There is enough this should be at AfD. Hobit ( talk) 23:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There is nothing to discuss here that has not already been covered. A prior review ( Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 September 1) already sent it back to deletion discussion (deletion #2) on procedural grounds due to the sources found, but those sources were deemed insufficient. Deletion #3 was on simple "Recreating the article" grounds. The sources provided above by the filer are terrible. Twitter, pornhub, xbiz, avn? I participated in afd #3 for the record. Zaathras ( talk) 15:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Zaathras. Until and unless some mainstream or broadsheet news coverage is presented, I think this should stay as a redirect. I see a lot of references to PORNBIO, but not so much to WP:BLP, which I consider to be far more important. The UK Daily Star is not taken seriously enough to be used as a source much, but IMHO it's even less trustworthy and reputable than The Sun. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I'm surprised to see this back here, and I think some respondents may lack context. I've looked into her past DRVs and AfDs when I was making my AfD for Eva Lovia a few weeks ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Lovia. The outcome for Lovia was delete. Ultimately, Eva Lovia and Lana Rhoades are of similar notability, in the non-Wikipedia sense of the word, have the same coverage in reliable sources, the same kinds of awards, etc. The previous AfDs on the issue are clear, and there is no reason to think that Rhoades would survive AfD.

Unless I am mistaken, the nominator and respondents suggesting to overturn seem to miss a key series of events. After a DRV suggesting new sources, the article ended back up at AfD in a week where it was deleted, on the basis that the sources did not establish notability.

The third AfD was probably unnecessary. I can't see the deleted article, but I don't believe she gained far more coverage in sources after AfD #2, and the article was probably very similar to the deleted one in that respect, and so I imagine it would've been eligible for speedy under G4 anyway. So, regardless of procedural anomalies in the AfD, I see no reason to plausibly think the outcome would've been different. Hence, overturn to keep seems inappropriate.

As for whether to relist, Momo824 makes a plausible argument under WP:ENT. As I noted in my Eva Lovia AfD, I do not necessarily agree with the decisions taken by AfD and DRV over the years to make it near-impossible for many pornographic performers to qualify. It's true that most porno performers will not be featured in The Guardian or CNN, yet I think some of the sources which are available are sufficiently reliable for these purposes (some are considered OK by the WikiProject at WP:PORN). Nevertheless, I can understand the more hostile precedent is also influenced from a time when there were far more performers with articles, and there was a desire to cut that down. So whether she qualifies under WP:ENT, or whether the sources are indeed reliable enough to write an article on her, seems rather moot, as the community has reiterated (over many years) its desire to apply a harsher criteria to pornographic performers. I don't see this having more success at AfD, or Momo's argument convincing people. But since there is some debate going on here, and WP:ENT was not raised in depth previously, there could be a discussion to be had. I'm torn between endorse and relist for that reason. Ultimately, I lean towards endorse, as I don't think there is a plausible chance relisting will result in a different consensus; no new evidence presented here and WP:ENT was mentioned in the 2nd AfD (albeit briefly), so I don't see that convincing editors. The sources listed are not at all better than the ones previously tried and failed for Rhoades, and other performers.

Finally, as a nitpick, S_Marshall: I'm not sure I would say Rhoades is a "fictional character". Her article would cover her as an individual, and simply be using her stage name as the title, on the basis that it is her WP:COMMONNAME. This is how most other articles on pornographic performers are constructed. Calling her a fictional character is equatable to saying The Weeknd or Lana Del Rey are fictional characters. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and undelete without prejudice to a new AfD. This was improperly closed as "speedy delete" without reference to one of the WP:CSD, and no applicable criteria for speedy deletion are apparent. The notability analysis is for a proper AfD to conduct, not for DRV. Sandstein 15:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse unless the recreated version includes a genuinely new legitimate claim of significance (not merely another citation to promotional content). Porn industry sources are notoriously unreliable, recycling whatever material producers, managers, and agents circulate to promote their clients and products. G4 deletion was taised as an option in the AFD discussion, and the closer's defective closing state merits strong criticism, but does not justify reversing of a substantively correct decision. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 04:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply