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.

First things first: Despite commonly being used as an argument, WP:GNG does not have to be met if a WP:SNG is met. WP:N is quite clear on that as pointed out by TheDragonFire when it says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; [...]" (emphasis added). In this case, there is no consensus that she has won "a well-known and significant industry award", so PORNBIO was not met anyway, rendering the discussion moot.

However, what those arguing for keep based on WP:PORNBIO seem to have overlooked is that Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, of which PORNBIO is a part, clearly states that those standards are mere indicators of notability, helping users to determine how an article should be handled. The actual criteria the article has to meet are mentioned in WP:BASIC which mostly mirrors GNG. Failing GNG will usually mean failing BASIC however unlike GNG BASIC explicitly allows combining multiple sources with non-substantial non-trivial coverage to establish notability, something those arguing along the lines of GNG should remember.

In this case, there were a number of sources mentioned but dismissed as merely trivial mentions at best, something that was not really disputed by those providing them (whether another user is "anti-porn" or not does not change the quality of the sources provided). Without any demonstration of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" ( WP:BASIC), deletion was the only correct outcome.

Regards So Why 16:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Alektra Blue

Alektra Blue (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Hasn't improved since last discussion. Still fails gng and consensus us has hardened against marginal/incredibly thin awards as substitutes for actual rs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom's accurate analysis and per my argument in the previous AFD. No qualifying awards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 12:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a BLP that lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man ( talk / en-2) 18:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep as thousands of sources online [1] thus the subject meets GNG, It's a hot day here in the UK and I simply cannot be bothered to post all of the sources today however on the first 2 pages there's mentions and by the looks of it indepth coverage here & there, Dunno about PORNBIO however certainly meets GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 18:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Sources: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

Sources aren't amazing however GNG is most certainly met. – Davey2010 ^Talk 19:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The subject here "has won a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (which is basically comparable to the People's Choice Awards) for "Favorite Female Rookie", which is also similar to other well-known, major adult film award categories like the AVN Award for Best New Starlet & XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet. The fact that the award winners tied that year is pretty much meaningless, and there is no restriction against fan-based awards under our inclusion guidelines. Guy1890 ( talk) 05:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• KEEP In addition to the significant Awards she has won, she is an icon of the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete total lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per those above - meets GNG and PORNBIO. A couple of the external links should probably be converted to references. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 19:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment Per WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline. WP:PORNBIO superseeds WP:GNG in this case. Regardless of the content of the article (which I have deliberately not looked at), arguments made at User talk:SophisticatedSwampert against their NAC are ridiculous. TheDragonFire ( talk) 07:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • If you read PORNBIO its pretty clear that its a rough guide and that articles are still required to pass GNG. There is no evidence this does which means the trend at AFD is to give more weight to GNG then PORNBIO in close closes. So not ridiculous but thank you for your input. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• So lets recap. There are assertions that this passes GNG but no sources have been adduced that actually pass the GNG. This leaves us an argument about a possible PORNBIO pass that I don't believe for an instant is nailed on and a BLP that clearly does not pass the GNG. The trend is to give GNG more weight than PBIO in close calls and there is a wider project consensus that BLPs require proper sourcing. On that basis my reading is that this is a delete. The closing admin might take a different view but evidence (not assertion) of passing GNG and evidence of the significance of the award will help. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete:-Total lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources.Echo Spartaz.Irrespective of WP:PORNBIO, WP:GNG must be met.If sources are provided, I'm willing to change my opinion.And please don't rely on number of GoogleHits.Take time to check the sites too! Winged Blades ^Godric 15:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- I question the assertion that " Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (which is basically comparable to the People's Choice Awards) for Favorite Female Rookie" qualifies as significant and well known for the purposes of PORNBIO. Neither do I believe that there's consensus that this award is comparable to People's Choice Award. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Editor coffman is entirely correct. The source that likened the FAME awards to the People's Choice Awards was the FAME awards' own organizers/promoters. It's a defunct award, one in a series of short-lived awards organized by AVN in hopes of generating another profitable event to supplement its primary ceremony. The FAME Awards failed, one successor, the "Sex Awards", were cancelled when a planned streaming video deal tanked, and the AVN Fan Awards haven't gained any traction and been rebooted at least once. At least two other porn performers who won the same award in the same category have had their articles deleted this year. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 00:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete There are no sources to support the claims of notability. Particularly intrigued by an entry above claiming "thousands of sources online" and, amusingly, "It's a hot day here in the UK and I simply cannot be bothered to post all of the sources". For the latter, I certainly hope that Mr. Davey2010, was able to find himself a nice iced tea, a cool washcloth on the back of the neck, or at least a shady resting area. For the former, the google hits are to a 1) Daily Dot top 20 Sexy Snapchat list of dubious notability, 2) a seattlepi.com false positive, as the porn actress' name only appears in the image caption of slide 5/27, in a story about another woman entirely, 3) a charming tale from the Daily Fail (largely deemed a non-reliable source by this project) about a senior citizen and his sex doll (that he totally does not have sex with, he says) who is modeled after Alektra Blue. The sourcing is rather downhill from there, regrettably. TheValeyard ( talk) 03:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• I realize it may be bizarre to post the hot day thing however editors are expected to post actual sources which at the time I couldn't be bothered to do, It's better than saying "Oh yeah meets GNG" and not posting anything. – Davey2010 ^Talk 19:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Yee-hah, let's analyze those "sources":

• "Snapchat Porn" - includes a picture of the subject's mouth and hand and her supposed snapchat ID. Nothing else. Worthlessd.
• "Seattle PI" - An article about a different porn performer does not even mention the subject, although she does appear in a group photo in an accompanying 27-image slideshow. Worthless.
• "Daily Mail" Includes a picture of an Alektra Blue sex doll in an article about men who own sex dolls. No info regarding article subject. Worthless.
• "lfpress" - An article which does not mention the article subject, illustrated with a group photo of porn performers, including Blue, not mentioned in the article. Worthless.
• "TMZ" - posed for a photo at a rapper's party. No other info. TMZ didn't even care enough to identify her in the photo. Worthless.
• "The Onion" - The fucking Onion. Namedropped in fake article on a fake/satirical news site. Utterly worthless.

Jo-Jo Eumerus, it's obvious that these sources were posted without making one shred of an effort to assess their value. No editor should have to waste any more time going through the rest of the list demonstrating the obvious. Six straight strikes and you're out! Please delete the article now; the appropriate outcome should be evident. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 15:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Ofcourse you're going to think they're "worthless" because you're anti-porn and you've demonstrated that with the constant AFD nominations and Delete !votes, The appropriate action would be to close this as No Consensus - Sources were provided and although you disagree with them that doesn't mean this article should be deleted. – Davey2010 ^Talk 15:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you'd condescend to explain to us exactly how the "snapchat porn" piece, which literally includes nothing more than a picture of the supposed subject's mouth and hand, plus her supposed snapchat ID, constitutes evidence of notability. There's more substantive information provided in the average youtube cat video, after all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 19:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep In my opinion sourcing seems sufficient to satisfy subjects notoriety, believe it meets WP:Pornbio Cllgbksr ( talk) 18:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Empty vote that does not address the WP:GNG concern. TheValeyard ( talk) 20:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - FWIW, some of the links (mentioned far above) that are reliable sources have recently been added to this article here. There are also no restrictions against "fan-based awards" in our inclusion guidelines. Guy1890 ( talk) 06:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strawman. You can include as many "fan awards" as you like, inclusion isn't the point of contention. The contention is that fan awards do not count towards determining notability. TheValeyard ( talk) 20:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

"The contention is that fan awards do not count towards determining notability"...which is, of course, a false claim as I've already stated. Also, basically saying that something is "unencyclopedic" isn't a valid AfD argument. Guy1890 ( talk) 06:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete from writing to sources. article has no encyclopedic worth to be here. some of the keep votes are questionable doubles. Light2021 ( talk) 21:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I've read your !vote 3 times and still cannot understand it could you either amend it so we can all understand it or simply strike it?, I did get the last bit which is actually wrong - There are no double !votes here - Each and every !vote in this AFD is unique and !votes on both sides are going per the relevant policies, Thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 16:18, 20 July 2017 (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.