Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Nena Cherry - Knowledge

Source 📝

327:: Not BLP1E because Cherry has gone on record herself as discussing this; unfortunately what are considered reliable sources within the porn industry don't necessarily get the same recognition at Wiki. Luke Ford is controversial, but one of the reasons why he's controversial is he isn't an industry mouthpiece, which actually makes him more of a reliable source than some others; his only problem is he's a blog and Wiki still has its head back in the 1990s when it comes to blogs being "unreliable sources". That's going to have to change now that we've had media such as CNN acknowledge that blogs, Twitter, and other "unreliable" sources came of age as source of record during the Mumbai attacks. Of course we need to follow BLP on any article, but the fact is for porn stars we need to expand our criteria beyond front-page stories in the New York Times and Forbes for these people. And as Ford observes, the 97 scare was ignored by the 466:
and they did belatedly put something, which seemed to work about maybe a third of the time. The second redo broke things even worse in that a number of articles simply seemed to disappear altogether from the site. I find the easiest way to find a specific article on AVN is to first plug the original URL into the Wayback Machine to get the full text of the article, then you can try and find the article on AVN since you can now search for specific terms.
204:. Although the present article does not reflect this, Nena Cherry was at the centre of a rather major HIV scare within the industry some years back. I believe coverage of this can be found in AFN among other reliable sources within the genre. I think it might have actually been covered on CNN, even. 465:
AVN has redone their database system at least twice that I know of, and neither time when they rolled out the change did they put in place any method to map old links to the new ones. The first time they redid it I wrote to them pointing out how their change broke our reference links to their site
490:
than bacon-wrapped shrimp is kosher for Passover because it has no leavened bread. A Reliable Source is noted for its careful fact-checking and editorial quality control. Luke is the paradigmatic opposite. Read him. You'll laugh; you'll cry. He's a blessing and he's a stitch. But none of his
431:. It cites a bunch of AVN articles none of which are showing up on their database right now. It may be possible to wayback the works referenced and document it that way. I'm just not sure if that would be enough. nothing on gnews, and only 2 passing references to her currently showing up on avn. 302: 485:
without prejudice to creating a new article about this subject with facts establishing notability from reliable sources. Right now there are, ummm, zero. I counted. Luke Ford is a helluva funny guy who does good stuff, but his blogs are no more kosher as
363:
Just a note that Luke Ford does not have a reputation for fact-checking and veracity as a porn gossipist and he has written that he has been sued for libel several times. He is definitely not considered an established expert on the industry he covers.
348:
That's not definitely true. From what you say, he's clearly an established expert on the subject. Has anything he's written been published by third party publishers? If so, his blog may be considered a reliable source.
183: 123: 223: 448:- Just because an article isn't online doesn't disqualify it as a source. Depends, of course, upon the context in which it's being cited in the paper. 304:
Luke Ford himself is no reliable source to establish notability considering he charges her with being a prostitute now. Only another brief mention in
310:
with John Stagliano stating that she tested positive for HIV before he did. This is probably also grounds for a deletion based on a BLP1E.
301:- She was part of the HIV scare in 1997 but Luke Ford observed what I long suspected: Media ignored the scare in 1997 compared to 2004. 220: 402: 346:
his only problem is he's a blog and Wiki still has its head back in the 1990s when it comes to blogs being "unreliable sources".
90: 85: 17: 287: 94: 77: 308: 515: 36: 514:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
369: 315: 35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
384:. As author of a professionally published book on the industry, I'd say that according to the criteria at 496: 436: 256: 500: 491:
blogs (and which ones does he even have a connection to any more?) is a Reliable Source for Knowledge.
475: 457: 440: 414: 397: 373: 358: 340: 319: 293: 260: 235: 213: 195: 173: 147: 59: 191: 365: 311: 276: 231: 471: 453: 336: 209: 410: 143: 131: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
429: 492: 432: 393: 354: 252: 81: 187: 227: 467: 449: 332: 272: 271:
If and only if proof of 23skidoo's claims are provided, then this person should meet
205: 168: 162: 135: 487: 406: 160:, likely search term. The current subject does indeed look to be unencyclopaedic. 157: 139: 53: 47: 111: 246:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
389: 385: 350: 73: 65: 381: 130:
No significant reliable sources found, and doesn't pass the criteria at
508:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
428:
That's odd. I found a economics paper mentioning her case here
118: 107: 103: 99: 251:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 184:list of Living people-related deletion discussions 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 518:). No further edits should be made to this page. 331:media -- that does not render it non-notable. 8: 219:Note: This debate has been added to the 182:: This debate has been included in the 7: 388:his blog is an acceptable source. 24: 134:. I've removed some content for 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1: 380:never mind; I just looked at 214:20:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 196:00:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 174:22:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 148:21:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 501:20:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 476:03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 458:14:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 441:05:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 415:22:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 398:20:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 374:22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 359:20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 341:14:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 320:02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 294:01:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 261:01:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 236:01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 60:04:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 535: 511:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 221:WikiProject Pornography 403:Jimbo Wales disagrees 44:The result was 290: 282: 263: 224:list of deletions 198: 172: 526: 513: 286: 280: 269:Conditional keep 250: 248: 238: 178: 166: 121: 115: 97: 56: 34: 534: 533: 529: 528: 527: 525: 524: 523: 522: 516:deletion review 509: 291: 244: 218: 117: 88: 72: 69: 54: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 532: 530: 521: 520: 504: 503: 480: 479: 478: 460: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 378: 377: 376: 366:Morbidthoughts 312:Morbidthoughts 296: 285: 265: 264: 249: 241: 240: 239: 216: 199: 176: 128: 127: 68: 63: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 531: 519: 517: 512: 506: 505: 502: 498: 494: 489: 484: 481: 477: 473: 469: 464: 461: 459: 455: 451: 447: 444: 443: 442: 438: 434: 430: 427: 424: 416: 412: 408: 404: 401: 400: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 367: 362: 361: 360: 356: 352: 347: 344: 343: 342: 338: 334: 330: 326: 323: 322: 321: 317: 313: 309: 307: 303: 300: 297: 295: 289: 283: 279: 275:generally. —/ 274: 270: 267: 266: 262: 258: 254: 247: 243: 242: 237: 233: 229: 225: 222: 217: 215: 211: 207: 203: 200: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 177: 175: 170: 165: 164: 159: 155: 152: 151: 150: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 125: 120: 113: 109: 105: 101: 96: 92: 87: 83: 79: 75: 71: 70: 67: 64: 62: 61: 58: 57: 50: 49: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 510: 507: 482: 462: 445: 425: 345: 328: 324: 305: 298: 277: 268: 245: 201: 179: 161: 158:Neneh Cherry 153: 129: 52: 48:Neneh Cherry 46:redirect to 45: 43: 31: 28: 493:David in DC 433:Horrorshowj 382:his article 253:Ron Ritzman 74:Nena Cherry 66:Nena Cherry 329:mainstream 188:Erwin85Bot 132:WP:PORNBIO 228:Raven1977 138:reasons. 468:Tabercil 463:Comment: 450:23skidoo 333:23skidoo 306:Pornstar 206:23skidoo 154:Redirect 124:View log 446:Comment 426:Comment 407:Epbr123 325:Comment 281:endaliv 140:Epbr123 91:protect 86:history 55:MBisanz 488:WP:RSs 483:Delete 390:JulesH 351:JulesH 299:Delete 273:WP:BIO 136:WP:BLP 119:delete 95:delete 169:Help! 122:) – ( 112:views 104:watch 100:links 16:< 497:talk 472:talk 454:talk 437:talk 411:talk 394:talk 386:WP:V 370:talk 355:talk 337:talk 316:talk 257:talk 232:talk 210:talk 202:Keep 192:talk 186:. -- 180:Note 144:talk 108:logs 82:talk 78:edit 288:Δ's 163:Guy 156:to 499:) 474:) 456:) 439:) 413:) 405:. 396:) 372:) 357:) 339:) 318:) 292:/ 284:// 259:) 234:) 226:. 212:) 194:) 146:) 110:| 106:| 102:| 98:| 93:| 89:| 84:| 80:| 51:. 495:( 470:( 452:( 435:( 409:( 392:( 368:( 353:( 335:( 314:( 278:M 255:( 230:( 208:( 190:( 171:) 167:( 142:( 126:) 116:( 114:) 76:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
deletion review
Neneh Cherry
MBisanz
04:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Nena Cherry
Nena Cherry
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
delete
View log
WP:PORNBIO
WP:BLP
Epbr123
talk
21:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Neneh Cherry
Guy
Help!
22:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
list of Living people-related deletion discussions
Erwin85Bot
talk

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.