- 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 no consensus. After much=extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete this article, and a reasonable argument that works and sources cited are sufficient to scrape by minimum standards for notability, with the possibility of notability being found and articles created for additional works featuring the subject. BD2412 T 00:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Darby Lloyd Rains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
16 years ago when this was first nominated it was allowed on a technical sng pass and someone noted it needed sourcing. Well 16 years later it's entirely bereft of a reliable source and pornbio has been consigned to the ranks of deprecated guidelines. Fails gng and ent. Spartaz Humbug! 18:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with at least three significant roles in notable films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC) (Added a few sources, more sources exist).[reply]
- Can you list the films and roles please
- And the sources added? Ta Spartaz Humbug! 00:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the page, check page history and the link "edits since nomination" on this page. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 09:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Except the nom's concerns have been addressed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- He obviously disagrees with your assertion. You stated she had 3 significant roles in notable films. What were they? The Wp:onus is on you to show what they are here. Spartaz Humbug! 07:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ’Obviously’? So the page still has no source? OK. I will assume good faith then. As for the rest of your comment, unless you are joking (it’s rather funny), I will assume good faith too: again, just read the page. You need to click on the title of the article on top of this page. I’m not going to copy paste the whole page here. And, by the way, what did you find during your BEFORE? Also, during the 1st AfD, the page was not ’allowed on technical sng pass’ but with a reference to (ANY)BIO (no technical mention of PORNBIO) and with a mention of ’definitely some claims to notability’. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: Lloyd Rains also clearly meets the requirements for the notability of actors for another reason: her prolific and noted contributions to the field; and probably passes the threshold for general notability requirements given the amount of ’’multiple independent sources" mentioning her importance in the said field, her roles and performances..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we need to hear from more editors. An aside though: Are we really going to talk about "noted contributions to the field" for porn as if it were the sciences, the arts or diplomacy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to relist aside: Yes, we certainly are. Especially in the Golden Age of Porn and with directors and artists that had such a strong and honest conviction they were playing an important part in the underground culture of their time and in the history of film. Various films with Lloyd Rains are genre films (horror, thriller, etc) that go far beyond what could be described as "porn" in a derogative way. And various sources, some used as references in the article (you will note that I used no sources from inside the "adult industry" and they include extremely notable and reliable film magazines and scholarship) about her films and performance do indeed mention that point, some in awe at the quality of the productions and at Lloyd Rains's abilities as an actress (one review finds her acting "insufferable", though; and that's not my opinion, which does not count and has nothing to do with my !vote and reply). Now, one might disagree and consider the result has no value, is immoral, tasteless, shocking, silly and trash, and not like it. But it's definitely a "field" in my opinion and her contributions to it were clearly prolific, and noted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside: I was not even thinking about "porn" when I wrote my additional comment (but about film in general). But, yes, I do think "pornography" is a field. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'll close this discussion according to policy and consensus despite my own view of this "profession". Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I never doubted you would. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You know that none of what you said relates to any policy and your assertion of special treatment of porn is belied by the depreciation of pornbio Spartaz Humbug! 10:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you even talking about? I don’t understand it but I do feel the tone and implication of your comment are rather not nice. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I have spent too much of my volunteer time checking much of the article's supposed references, and they are just a WP:REFBOMB of trivial mentions and unreliable sources that do not meet WP:GNG. Elspea756 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Curious to know which sources precisely can be deemed "unreliable", except IAFD, which I didn't add myself
and that can be removed (feel free); and the source for her role in "This film is all about..." (which I (had) tagged myself as poor, in the hope that an expert or any other user could add a better one, the film being by Damiano) (NB- I just removed both references). "supposed references" is also an interesting choice of words (are they not real? are they fake? Did I make anything up? are they not there?); and how much is "much" of 41 footnotes? 12, 38? As for WP:REFBOMB, well, I did my best to source every statement and role in the partial filmography (more exists) and I don't think (such was not my intent, at least) that any of the references is used in any of the 4 ways mentioned in that essay. WP:NACTOR, on the other hand, is a guideline, and would seem the applicable guideline, and it states, "This guideline applies to actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. Such a person may be considered notable if:The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." (the field of entertainment being cinema/acting) Is it not the case and are the coverage and mention/appraisal of her roles in the reviews of her most notable films, for example, not sufficient to prove it? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Bludgeon Spartaz Humbug! 06:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bludgeoning? OK. Was it when I was replying to your comment on my !vote and on your comments to every reply I gave to others, or when I mentioned you didn't bother to check the page and your rationale was inaccurate? Or when I asked what you found in your BEFORE? Or when I replied to Liz's question in her aside?
- Or simply when I commented on the 2 !votes? The link you provide most kindly, states:
It is okay to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy or asking a question. It isn't okay to pick apart every single comment that is contrary to your position.
- There are only 3 !votes here, including mine. I've replied, politely, I think, to point "per nom" was a bit surprising and ask a question to identify potential unreliable sources. I'll stop commenting at all here, but I am not exactly certain I am the one bludgeoning the process here, even though my replies took me more time and work than yours took you, most obviously. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to be a clear pass of WP:NACTOR, for starring roles in multiple notable films? We even have independent articles for three of the films listed in this article already. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and in addition to those three, I'm convinced that Angel on Fire, which we don't have an article for yet, also is a notable film, simply on the basis of the sources already in the article. Abduction of an American Playgirl is, too. And many of these reviews are from decades after the debuts of the original films! These aren't just "notable in their time" films. These are films with real lasting notability. The more I look the more convinced I am that this is an obvious WP:NACTOR pass here. -- asilvering (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added another academic article to the sources here. This is where I'll stop. We've kept articles on WP:NACTOR grounds on much, much less. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The outcome here depends on NACTOR rather than GNG: further consideration of NACTOR would be helpful in determining a clear outcome. At the moment this is leaning keep because the arguments for deletion are countering GNG rather than NACTOR, but I would prefer to wait for a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2024 (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.