Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherie DeVille

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. RL0919 (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cherie DeVille

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear if notable. Sourcing is minimal, most of it relating to a publicity stunt presidential candidacy. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting but does not meet WP:ENT. More suited for Pornopedia. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to those in the article, there are also seven sources in the talk page that are not in the article. ミラ P 05:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 05:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 05:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 05:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 05:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 05:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mainstream media articles could not be found during a search. Running as a presidential candidate appears to have been a publicity stunt, a one-off, and a case of WP:BIO1E. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to the nontrivial significant coverage or, given that can be contested, redirect to her running mate Coolio, where she is mentioned in the article. ~~I don’t have time to explain everything right now, but I’ll do it tomorrow.~~ ミラ P 05:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing whatsoever to go on besides the stunt "candidacy" and as someone active in the internet age the fact that Google turns up with nothing doesn't bode well for there being sources we don't have access to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If the subject doesn't meet the GNG through this faux "candidacy," then under what notability guideline does any keep proponent claim she does qualify? Ravenswing 02:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ravenswing: I think it does, if you look at the articles for Uproxx, Fox News, Daily Beast, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and this article from The Hill where Cherie DeVille "insisted at the time that the campaign was legitimate and not a PR stunt." Which should be enough to address the issue on the campaign's legitimacy. ミラP 03:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And is there significant coverage for other than this "candidacy?" No. (That being said, let me make sure I understand here: you're stipulating that this wasn't a PR stunt based on the subject's say-so?) Ravenswing 10:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uproxx isn't a notability-making source. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Bearcat: No comment on the others or the seven sources ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]) in the talk page? ミラP 15:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aside from what I already said about them below? Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is her campaign filed at FEC? If not, delete. --Lunar New Year is cancelled due to Brexit (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:BLP1E as a policy overrides GNG. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 19:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: Then can we turn the biography into an article about the candidacy? Cherie DeVille 2020 presidential campaign? ミラ P 01:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absent a reason why the candidacy could be deemed noteworthy? Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Well Coolio was her running mate, but I didn't say I wanted to. ミラ P 15:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Naming a running mate who was already notable as a musician, but still has no notability as a politician even now, is not an instant free pass over NPOL either. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I didn't say it was, but I have no objection to redirecting this to Coolio's article. I'll just drop my support for keeping the article at your suggestion. ミラ P 15:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our notability standards for porn performers have been considerably tightened up, and are no longer satisfied just by sourcing their roles to the Adult Film Database or their awards to XBIZ's own self-published website about itself — they now require stronger evidence of real media coverage independent of porn SPIP, much more in line with what non-porn actors have to show. But declaring oneself a fringe candidate for president is also not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL — literally any citizen of the United States can say they are or will become a candidate for the presidency, so even that isn't an instant notability clincher in the absence of reliably sourced evidence that anybody else took the candidacy seriously. But there are just two hits of genuine media coverage being shown about that (Uproxx is not a reliable or notability-making source either, folks), which is not enough coverage to make a person notable just for being a withdrawn candidate in an election she never had any chance of winning. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearcat: just two hits of genuine media coverage being shown I know about Daily Beast and Fox News, but the Huffpost piece was, if you click the author, written by a journalist. That should be three, right? ミラP 16:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Huffington Post can be fine for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been nailed to the wall by stronger sources, but is not in and of itself a GNG-nailing source if it's up near the top of the best sources you can find. It's a blog, not a notability-clinching established or major media outlet — it's not entirely worthless, but it's not a golden ticket either. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Bearcat: Analyze all the sources involving the candidacy but Hoffpost and Uproxx so I can be done here. ミラP 16:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Daily Beast: Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person; fine for supplementary verification of stray facts, but not a data point toward passage of GNG.
        Washington Examiner: not a reliable source at all, thus not even acceptable for verification of stray facts in the first place, let alone a load-bearing pillar of a GNG claim. Times two, since it accounts for two of the sources you're talking about.
        Billboard: about Coolio, not Cherie DeVille, so not speaking to Cherie DeVille's notability at all.
        Reason: mentions her name, but not about her in any non-trivial way.
        So really all we've got is Fox News, which is not enough all by itself. We're looking for substantive coverage in reliable sources about her, not just blogs or sources that mention her name or interviews in which she's talking about herself.Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Bearcat: Thanks, I'm officially done here. I wasn't objecting to this article being deleted anyway. ミラ P 16:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to admins: ~~Please relist this (can't do it myself because I'm involved).~~ There's a discussion at WP:RSN regarding Uproxx. ミラP 01:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? Our arguments are mainly based upon BLP1E and Uproxx makes no difference whatsoever. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @J947: Thanks. I'll let the admins delete it. ミラ P 02:22, 28 January 2020 (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.