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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Starr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails PORNBIO & GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: seems to have Polish coverage, but it'll need competent eyes to check. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, fame, popularity in Poland.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as passes PORNBIO & GNG, Ofcourse as always this !vote has absolutely nothing to do with her looks. –Davey2010^Talk 17:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From what I can tell, Fakt and Super Express are both legitimate newspapers on par with something like the New York Post or the Sun - not necessarily reliable enough for a BLP issue, but they certainly meet the standard for notability. -- Irn (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • tabloids are Not generally accepted As passing the gng. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tabloid is a physical format. The New York Daily News is a Pulitzer Prize-winning tabloid. -- Irn (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. "Tabloid" is a type of journalism. I'd like to point you to WP:ROUTINE where it says "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." and to WP:SENSATION where it says "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting. Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip.". Kraxler (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloids and tabloid journalism are not the same thing. The Daily News is, in fact, a Pulitzer Prize-winning tabloid. You've rightly pointed out that tabloid journalism doesn't count towards an event's notability. This biography, however, has two articles from newspapers that are tabloids. If you want to make the argument that these two articles represent tabloid journalism, you are free to do so, but the mere fact that they are from a tabloid-style newspaper is not sufficient. -- Irn (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Fakt ("Fakt is characterised by its downmarket, often sensationalist journalism with a populist appeal...Fakt has been subjected to criticism concerning its style of journalism from media watchdogs. Twice so far, the Association of Polish Journalists awarded Fakt with its "Hyena Of The Year" award for "particular unscrupulousness and neglect of the principles of the journalistic work ethic") and Super Express ("Since 2007, with the new editor-in-chief formerly from Fakt, Super Express adjusted its profile to become (similar to Fakt) "a noble version of the tabloid daily"")? Kraxler (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No case for passing PORNBIO. The claim that she passes the GNG rests entirely on two extremely brief articles reporting only superficial biographical information. Both articles are minimal, existing primarily as a hook on which to hang galleries of cheesecake photos of the subject -- in other words, clickbait. It's also rather curious that the Super Express piece describes her as the only Pole with a significant role in the US porn industry, effectively denying the existence of her sister (who is discussed in the Fakt piece). With only these two flimsy and inconsistent articles cited, it's difficult to see how BLP/GNG requirements can be met. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable, popular in Poland. Also, nominations for awards, 9x interwiki, good quality article, not stub.... - keep. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 11:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tabloids are generally poor in terms of quality reporting, fact-checking, and reputation, thus they are frowned upon when considering what is a reliable source to determine a subject's notability. Without the tabloid name-drops, there's nothing to satisfy the project's notability threshold. Tarc (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz & Tarc. Finnegas (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Irn. Covered by Polish reliable sources including [1]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable mainstream Polish media. Some of the sources are in the tabloid format, which does not degrade their reliability. Some "delete" votes above are confusing Tabloid (newspaper format) with Tabloid journalism, which aren't the same thing. Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Irn's rationale. These porn AfDs are becoming increasingly lazy. "Fails GNG" when there is clearly some claim to notability. How about explaining why it fails GNG? Notability is demonstrated as per the Polish sources and I am sure other refs could be found if we looked. Deleting this would be as silly as deleting Puma Swede, who just like Natalia Starr may not be notable in the U.S., but is definitely notable in Sweden. World wide fame is not a criteria of WP:GNG, as far as I know. Nymf (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There's no reason to cast aspersions here; I could just as easily apply the term "lazy" to editors who simply assume a publication is reliable even though its extensively referenced native-language Wikipedia article [2] points out its reputation for "misconduct and disregard for the rules of journalistic ethics" and "the administration of untruth and creat[ion of] fictional material". What's happened here is fairly straightforward: a flurry of posts on social media claimed (without any credible evidence) that the winner of a quite minor beauty pageant ("Miss Polonia Manhattan") had become a porn performer. ([3] seems to be the starting point, apparently based only on visual resemblances in a few photos. Sources which base their reporting on social media aren't reliable, and can't support a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SENSATION: "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting. Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip." This is policy, not any odd guideline. Kraxler (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2015 (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.