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. T. Canens ( talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Ashley Renee

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

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

Since the SIGNY has no article this fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. The SIGNY Award she won is not well-known. It was argued in the previous AfD that she meets criterion #2 ("has made unique contributions"), but passing semi-RS mentions of her as a bondage favorite are not enough to support this. The only significant independent coverage appears to be the Adult Video News article cited. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. Almost all other coverage appears to republished press releases in the porn trade press. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Doesn't seem to have reliable sources to support her "unique" contributions to a niche category of pornography. One extensive article in AVN is not enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 02:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Is there consensus somewhere that avn.com and Xbiz don't qualify as independent reliable sources for questions of notability? -- Irn ( talk) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• AVN and XBIZ articles should be treated with caution since many of them are republished press releases. That is especially true with releases and event announcements. AVN appears to have one in-depth and independent profile, but that can't establish notability by itself. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Gene93k is quite correct. Further, AVN's factchecking, outside of a fairly narrow range of articles focusing on industry operations, can be rather dire. Note, for example, this profile of Tera Patrick [1] (a quite prominent figure), which asserts that "In March 2002 she became the only woman ever to appear on the covers of Penthouse and Playboy simultaneously", which is quite wide of the mark in that 1)February and March are not "simultaneous"; 2)even if they were, it happened, quite famously, with Madonna years earlier. Xbiz is a component of a PR business (Adnet Media), and its editorial independence is dubious (for example, its clients determine the nominations for its awards). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 12:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Claimed awards fail SNG standards. A single article in a trade magazine falls short or GNG requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 12:44, 19 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.