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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney_Wright (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)

Actor that fails to meet the notability guidelines of WP:ENT: Does not have significant roles in multiple notable productions, nor have they made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The only reliable secondary source about the subject relates to how this pornographic actor went to Iran, posted some photos on social media, and has cause a social media controversy online. This doesn't establish notability as an entertainer, and is exclusively be tied to a single event that is largely unrelated to the subject's profession as an entertainer. Davidwbaker (talk) 19:41, 10 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 Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.). However the torrent of coverage W. Wright received for her political opinions shows her notability as porn actress is recognised outside WP and outside industry/adult coverage. That's why I think the article could be retained. NB-Coverage is international and includes reliable media, Guardian, Al Jazeera, Euronews, Hindustan Times, and so on. Despite this being limited in time, my !vote is based on the fact that it confirms her more general notability (since PORNBIO has been "cancelled"). (Note: I am the one who DPDd the page- same nominator, as I didn't judge deletion uncontroversial). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, Israel, and Palestine. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets GNG with the Guardian and the AP source. Coverage in a few different news sources [1] as well. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Coverage of her persists as she visits Syria: [2] Aintabli (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG. Restored the section on her career that was missing to make the article complete. gidonb (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: They've gotten a lot of press for their political views, not just for their work in the adult industry. This shows they're notable outside of that world. Plus, they've been covered by major news outlets like The Guardian and Al Jazeera. That kind of coverage is pretty significant. Waqar💬 17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The fact that the nominator tried to delete this article through PROD is a disgrace. PROD should ONLY be used when no opposition to deletion is expected. In this discussion I see not even one person who supports delete. gidonb (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you assume good intent, you must conclude that I expected no opposition to deletion, which is truly the case.

  I am honestly surprised that a non-notable entertainer becomes notable when there's a social media controversy about going to Iran. I don't think she meets WP:ENT nor WP:GNG. She is a non-notable person who plays a major role in a single minor incident. This doesn't seem like encyclopedic content to me.

  So, yes, I used PROD, expecting no opposition. I moved it to the Talk page, tagged the author, and waited for some time for other editors to comment. No one did. So I went with AfD.

  However, I see that my judgment of what is or is not notable doesn't agree with the unanimity here, and I'll be more careful in the future when proposing articles for deletion. Davidwbaker (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of course is not that of bad intent. Just poor judgement. When you do not have even the beginning of a case to delete, one should NEVER prod. Thank you for using PROD more carefully in the future. gidonb (talk) 00:12, 16 July 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.