Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelly Jamison
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 keep. --Coredesat 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shelly Jamison[edit]
- Shelly Jamison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- Delete - Appears to lack much notability Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 16:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas NN. Most recent reference in the article was being in playboy in 1989. Failes WP:N and WP:PORNBIO. meshach 17:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per nom. Jamison not only lacks an IMDB entry, RollerGames itself just barely has one. It's always a bad sign when the lead Google hit is the Wikipedia article undergoing AfD. RGTraynor 18:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia article is the lead Google hit for Michelangelo, Solomon, Moses... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be kind of interesting to slap a "porn" category on Michelangelo's David, then wait and see how long it takes for that article to come up for AfD nomination. (Just joking, of course.) Dekkappai 19:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia article is the lead Google hit for Michelangelo, Solomon, Moses... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Was a Playboy model and was reporter and very popular TV show RollerGames. Passes WP:BIO per: "... actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." --Oakshade 21:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.(see below). Doesn't pass WP:BIO merely for being "sideline reporter" in a little-known show which only ran for one season. No other notability or sources given. EliminatorJR Talk 23:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Appeared as a regular on a show which was popular. "Sideline reporter" was a major part of the show. --Oakshade 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Errr ... that would be "appeared as a regular on a show which was cancelled after a single season, and had so little impact on the film world that she doesn't even have an IMDB entry." RGTraynor 03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not having an IMDB entry doesn't negate the WP:BIO guideline. --Oakshade 05:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't, but she doesn't meet any of the suggested notability factors for TV personalities in WP:BIO. EliminatorJR Talk 17:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually she does, by the WP:BIO clause cited above. --Oakshade 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No - you can't just take that first clause in isolation, otherwise every extra in a crowd scene in a major film, popular soap opera, etc. would be notable. If you look at the bullet-points; "Notability can be determined by: (a) Multiple features in credible magazines and newspapers (b) A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following (c) A credible independent biography (d) Wide name recognition (e) Commercial endorsements". EliminatorJR Talk 01:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. Beyond that, by what standard was RollerGames "well known?" RGTraynor 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely no part of WP:BIO that states that "notablity" must be a combination of clauses. WP:BIO states very clearly "People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles..." And any show that was produced for at least a full season (at least 22 episodes) and shown nationally in the US is certainly "well known." --Oakshade 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it needed to be a combination. Does the subject satisfy any *one* of (a) to (e) above? EliminatorJR Talk 02:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what "(a) to (e)" is referring to, but it satifies the Entertainers clause of WP:BIO. --Oakshade 02:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (a) to (e) refers to my posting above. However, we're obviously not going to agree on the semantics of WP:BIO here, so I'll leave it to other editors to decide. EliminatorJR Talk 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid we just plain disagree, both that this nonentity satisfies WP:BIO or that an obscure, forgotten syndicated single-season show is "well-known." As Eliminator correctly says, we'll see what other editors think. RGTraynor 14:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what "(a) to (e)" is referring to, but it satifies the Entertainers clause of WP:BIO. --Oakshade 02:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it needed to be a combination. Does the subject satisfy any *one* of (a) to (e) above? EliminatorJR Talk 02:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely no part of WP:BIO that states that "notablity" must be a combination of clauses. WP:BIO states very clearly "People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles..." And any show that was produced for at least a full season (at least 22 episodes) and shown nationally in the US is certainly "well known." --Oakshade 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually she does, by the WP:BIO clause cited above. --Oakshade 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't, but she doesn't meet any of the suggested notability factors for TV personalities in WP:BIO. EliminatorJR Talk 17:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not having an IMDB entry doesn't negate the WP:BIO guideline. --Oakshade 05:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Errr ... that would be "appeared as a regular on a show which was cancelled after a single season, and had so little impact on the film world that she doesn't even have an IMDB entry." RGTraynor 03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Appeared as a regular on a show which was popular. "Sideline reporter" was a major part of the show. --Oakshade 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I found a long Phoenix New Times article devoted to her (added to the article). With the Playboy cover and article, that makes her pass WP:BIO with multiple non-trivial secondary sources devoted to her. Not to mention hosting a national television program. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also found the USA Today article (though won't pay to see the full text, so can't say much about it). Our article has been rewritte, and reformatted, it clearly meets WP:BIO, please look at it again, folks. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Multiple sourcing, high-profile magazine appearance, mainstream media appearances... Easily passes WP:BIO. Why was this nominated for AfD? Dekkappai 19:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was nominated through lack of sourcing and references. No way is that TV show acceptable. However, given the new information, Keep. EliminatorJR Talk 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BIO. The added references (USA Today and Phoenix New Times, along with her appearance on the cover of Playboy establish notability. -- Black Falcon 08:07, 10 March 2007 (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.