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. Consensus is that the subject is not notable.  Sandstein  06:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boroka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

DrV was closed with leave to restart an new Afd [1]. I feel that she doesn't meet WP:N nor does she meet WP:PORNBIO with the single award nomination. Hobit (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Subject fails PORNBIO and the GNG; the article includes no reliable or independent sourcing for any biographical information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  If nominator has looked at the sources, why are they not marked with deadlink tags?  Is it asking too much that deadlinks be marked before bringing an AfD to the rest of the community?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erb? The three sources in the article all work for me. Are you referring to something else or are you finding them dead for you? I can't say I've inspected them closely, but I don't see them as even coming close to meeting WP:N's sourcing requirements (2 blogs that appear to exist at least in part for the purpose of promoting the subject and one list of products). Hobit (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Figured it out. I just saw the porn and lack of any kind of coverage of any kind (insert drum roll) and didn't notice the redirection from dead pages. My fault. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Lack of coverage". Badoom tish. :) Reyk _YO! 12:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice to see someone got it. :-) Hobit (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO, only 1 AVN nom in 1 year. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Complicated AfD.  The Google search [+Boroka +(Pendolino OR Borres OR Bolls)] starts with 660,000 hits.  I believe that the topic fails WP:PORNBIO.  However, topic is notable under WP:N, as shown in that 652 web pages have been created and dedicated just for Boroka (some presumably mirrors which reduces the count).  Is there enough reliable content to satisfy the requirement in WP:V to have an article?  I suspect that there is, but it seems that no one is really all that interested in working on the topic, especially with the difficulty in resolving the conflicting information.  I've found three birthdates.  Is she 5' 4" or 5' 6" or 5' 9"?  I did find that two more actresses were selected as "Private Sexclusive" representatives, and there is a news article from London about an appearance there.  Did she leave the industry in 2009?  The fact that no one noticed three dead links through the previous AfD and the start of this one says something, but I'm not sure what.  I made a change to the WP:Guide to deletion but was reverted.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I'm not so sure the first link was a deadlink when the initial AFD began; it's part of a porn vendor's catalog, which changes frequently. That said, the links in question went to promotional pages from porn vendors, and are now redirected to different promotional pages from the same porn vendors, and it's not generally easy to distinguish between such pages, although it is easy to see that they won't provide evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response  Not sure, but I think it more likely that Private shut down that page in 2009.  It seems that Wikipedia needs a bot to get all of our references into the wayback machine, or maybe Wikimedia needs to create our own Wayback library?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist? Two deletes + the nomination, and a comment which (no offense) doesn't really offer much of anything; notability can't be squeezed out of google hits. It's bad enough that PORNBIO is so pathetically weak that it essentially gives thousands of porn "actors" a free publicity platform, it is even worse when we waste time quibbling over a subject that can't even reach that low-hanging fruit. Sigh. Tarc (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- yeah, I'm with Tarc here. Of all the pathetically weak notability guidelines on Wikipedia this is easily the most feeble. This person can't even meet that, and here we are relisting the debate. What's the point? Lots of people have jobs; some people get paid for taking off their clothes on camera. Big deal. Reyk _YO! 12:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What a waste of time. Two AfDs, four relists and a DRV over something that clearly fails the notability criteria. Should have been deleted after the first AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Some unconstructive responses.  The last two are empty votes, they cannot be reduced by the force of reason.  The previous comment incorrectly uses a WP:GHITS argument, and dismisses hours of analysis without countering analysis.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering all delete arguments, I see no delete positions showing a due diligence effort to analyze the facts with metrics–none account for 660,000 page hits.  In comparison with the 660,000 page hits, "pro-life movement" gets 289,000 page hits.  As suggested by WP:Articles for deletion, proof by assertion is a logical fallacy.  I think that by Wikipedia standards, IAFD and adultfilmdatabase are considered reliable.  The Sexclusive press release is reliable to say that Boroka received the Sexclusive appointment, and this appointment is confirmed by a business.avn article here and also here.  Even though we have three birthdates, we can infer that more research would produce reliable records in Hungary of this person's birthdate.

Nor has there been analysis of the 652 web pages dedicated to the topic (BTW, the initial Google value for [inurl:Boroka] is 112,000 pages).  The existence of each such web page is reliable (can be verified by readers).  Those web pages are each statements that the topic meets the definition of notability in WP:N, i.e., is "worthy of notice".  With the exception of "Pro-life" (8.65 million page hits), I doubt I've ever worked on a topic that has this much attention on the WWW.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is free publicity, we had it on here for three years during the actresses career, and now that that career is over, it is time to AfD it?  Are we being used?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried to fix the dead link to the AVN 2008 nominations?  AVN_Award#External links shows that the information is in the wayback machine, but I've not been able to see it.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I previously said that the topic satisfies WP:N but not WP:PORNBIO.  I am amending that position to say that the topic meets both WP:N and WP:PORNBIO.  This is because the Private Sexclusive appointment meets the intended purpose of WP:PORNBIO point #1.  Only three actresses were ever given the title of Private Sexclusive.  I continue to think that the notability under WP:N is stronger.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No consensus  I have been unswayed by the delete votes and !votes.  I have made points that support both delete and keep positions.  There are questions, and IMO the quality of the debate this week has added a cloud of hyperbole (for example, "squeezed", "much of anything", "quibbling", "big deal", "pathetically" (twice), "feeble", "waste", "easily" (without metrics), and "clearly" (without metrics) ) to the consensus into what was already a complicated AfD.  The closing admin may choose to consider the previous question regarding a point for which consensus still exists: is the fact that no one wants to work on an article a reason for deletion?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets PORNBIO. I said keep last time and I say keep now too. was a nominee for the 2008 AVN Award for Female Foreign Performer of the Year is quite telling. Has made an impact in the world of adult entertainment,you can say whatever you like about the pron industry but its not up for us to judge a womans choice of career.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't usually comment on AfDs in this area, but since I did comment at the deletion review, I think it;'s fairly clear she does not meet PORNBIO. She was nominated for one, and the requirement reads "Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years." Whether the criteria for notability in this field are too weak is something I'm not sure about, but they do seem rather low, and we certainly shouldn't go at all lower than they specify. adultfilm database like other such , are reliable for the facts of a career, but not for determining notability. It would be absurd for our standards to be as low as inclusion there . DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment  There is a lack of metrics here for being "too low".  How many people in this field are excluded by these criteria?  My sense in this AfD is that no one here has the experience to understand such a balance, and this idea of "too low" was started for the purpose of hyperbole, not by being based on design standards.  Given how easily Boroka seems to pass WP:N, WP:PORNBIO seems to me like a higher standard, which pretty much raises the question in my mind of why have WP:PORNBIO when it is so much harder to meet than WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This last delete position seems to be saying that the topic does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO point #2.  It does not discuss WP:PORNBIO point #1 or WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem to meet the subject guidelines. It doesn't look like the subject meets GNG, either. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2011 (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.