Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Miranda

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. Sandstein 07:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Miranda (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)

Nothing notorious work as a model, singer(fail project sexy dolls, none notorious work as DJ), dancer and pornstar(only three movies). A speedly fame around 2008/2009 based in two fake publicity, as niece of singer Gretchen and a virgin debut in porn.

Fail in WP: PORNBIO (see here) and presumably in WP:BASIC, their media coverage is trivial.

WP:Notability is not inherited fair in this case, too. Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - She's a soft porn star trying to diversify into music, or vice-versa. Should first be subjected to WP:PORNBIO and flunks that guideline due to being a self-promoting beginner with almost no industry notice. In music, she is promoting herself as a singer but so far has only earned a couple of cameo appearances in other people's works. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Let's start with Globo Group sourcing. According to our own article, Globo is the "largest mass media group of Latin America" and "17th place in a list of the top global media owners". A Google seach of "Carol Miranda" site:globo.com gives over 200 hits. Those hits include extensive coverage dedicated to her[1], by multiple authors,[2] from apparently different divisions.[3] Many of the Globo hits are individually brief,[4] however even those items collectively constitute quite extensive systematic coverage. Even if we were to consider the entire Globo conglomerate a single source, we have plenty of other sources providing significant coverage, including: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. I can't speak Portuguese, but I *think* I've also found a broadcast TV piece on her.[11] She is also personally credited for her videos breaking sales records,[12] so she's not some random actress in some random film. I also found Portuguese Wikipedia closed a deletion-discussion as keep.[13] Each Wikipedia of course makes independent decisions based on our own policies&guidelines, however it is worth noting that editors in the native language found the topic well sourced and Notable. I also consider it noteworthy that in the last half year, the article has been getting over 60 pageviews per day.[14] In isolation that's not proof of Notability, but clearly readers find the article valuable. I'd also like to point out that WP:Notability is not inherited is irrelevant here. She has been getting her own extensive coverage in sources. It is true that many of sources took a special interest in her due to her relation to another famous individual, however that is irrelevant for our purposes.
  I find it doubtful we would be having a deletion debate, with this much sourcing, if her work had been in any other genre. Alsee (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Response to the Above - Alsee found many sources but quantity does not mean that notability matters like WP:ROUTINE and WP:SIGCOV have been satisfied. Alsee's list comes with the admission that he/she does not read Portuguese. I did a little experiment and subjected those soruces to Google Translate. Of course that service is not foolproof but I did learn that all of those sources are inspired by the same topic: Ms. Miranda's publicity stunt of selling her virginity for a large sum via a porn video. The source described by Alsee as "her videos breaking sales records" has the misleading title Caroline Miranda Porn Movie Breaks Sales Record but the body of the article merely states that the film about her virginity sold 15000 copies with no verification and without analyzing if that really is a record. All those sources, while focused on that one film, also repeat the point that Ms. Miranda is the niece of Gretchen or was mistaken for the same. We could cite WP:BLP1E here -- Ms. Miranda got noticed for a publicity stunt and got some coverage on that one stunt. And finally, Alsee's point on how Ms. Miranda's article in Brazil's Wikipedia survived is valid, but that may reflect different national opinions on notoriety and what is relevant as an encyclopedic topic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  When I said I don't speak Portuguese I meant I was unable to evaluate the audio in the video clip. I did use Google Translate to check every text-source I cited. The text sources were significant coverage, and not routine. As for why ReliableSources wrote about her, our job isn't to second guess the judgement of the world. The entire encyclopedia would descend into chaos if we all started arguing whether everyone's else's topics are 'stupid'. Our job is to evaluate whether the world (multiple ReliableSources) did deem the topic Noteworthy enough to publish significant coverage. If so, then whoever who considers the topic worthwhile can write an article summarizing that coverage. Alsee (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have made valid points on what qualifies as "significant" or "routine," and you and I simply disagree on that in relation to this particular article. We can leave that matter up to other voters. But you went too far by implying that voters here "second guess the judgement of the world" (actually it's just Brazil so far) and decide whether other countries' topics are "stupid" or not. I have not argued in that fashion and neither has anyone else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:PORNBIO. Coverage is clearly insufficient for a BLP. Apart from the publicity stunt, there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2018 (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.