Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Jane Ceylon

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 Delete. Davewild (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Jane Ceylon

Sarah Jane Ceylon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is still unverified after over a year. 0 returns found in AVN,Xbiz, Gnews or PVD. Only refs for article are her website and kink.com profile. Notability is asserted due to prominence in fetish and porn videos, but doesn't seem provable. Has COI issues also, name of editor who created article is also listed in article as the subject's husband. There have been enough other editors and changes since that editors last edit that I don't think it should be speedied as such, so nominating her. Delete as Nom Horrorshowj (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Horrorshowj (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No objective notability asserted. No 3rd party sources cited in article and none found by search for evidence of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agree totaly with nom. NN, Promo, COI, V. I'd also suggest you took a look at her husband's article Cyd Black in case that warrants deletion as well. It looks like they've been set up as promotional pages. Spawn Man Review Me! 09:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Strongly disagree. Several references by disinterested third parties exist, and are comparable to the references given for all the models on the List_of_bondage_models_by_decade. Given that this Delete suggestion is new, request that discussion be tabled for a short while references are added and then re-reviewed. Similarly, the same litmus test applies to the Cyd Black article. If this article is not legitimate, then none of the articles linked from the Bondage_rigger list are legitimate either. References from prominent disinterested third parties are available from the outlets mentioned such as AVN, Xbiz and otherwise. Since said article was only recently added, the article is a work in progress. Citations and references will be researched and referenced within three days time. The notion that the article on Sarah Jane Ceylon and/or Cyd Black where set up as promotional pages is cynical, misinformed and factually incorrect. Disclosure: While I clearly appear to have a conflict of interest in this matter, I believe that I am able to offer an objective and logical view by providing the required references. References will be added within 3 days time. Request further discussion be tabled until references are added.
  • The above unsigned comment was added by Cydblack.
  • comment. Better yet, please point out a published article or two which other editors can add to the Sarah Jane Ceylon article. The Cyd Black article is for another discussion. But please note that Cydblack writing articles related to Cyd Black is a conflict of interest and sets off alarms. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • AfD discussions generally run 5 days, so if you can find usable refs in 3 days things should be fine. It's better to not them on the talk page rather than making the edits yourself, as previously noted. I looked on every website/search engine I mentioned, so I'm going to be surprised if you find something there. All I found were mentions that she was in scenes on various new releases which isn't enough. Horrorshowj (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (opinion from above changed) After further thought, article creation by a related person would continually be a point of contention. Cydblack
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.