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. Bearing in mind that AfD is not a vote, as closer I need to evaluate the policy-based strength of arguments. The arguments to keep are not supported by sufficient coverage in reliable sources. I expect that some editors would prefer that this be relisted, but relisting will not cause independent reliable sources or general notability to appear out of the ether. No prejudice against restoring to draft if it is believed that stronger sources will develop or be found.
BD2412T01:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
How does she meet
WP:NACTOR and how much academic work could she have put out in pursuing her bachelor degree? We don't even have her real name to make this association.
Morbidthoughts (
talk)
20:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
"Has a large fan base", "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Presumably the works were during her post-graduate studies.--
John B123 (
talk)
20:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
You've missed the point, which is not that I'm suggesting
WP:NACADEMIC is applicable, but that sometimes you need to search beyond multiple pages of porn site results. --
John B123 (
talk)
21:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
No, I meant the evidence that she complies with BIO, particularly
WP:ENT. If you or someone else provide the evidence, the article is more likely to be kept.
Morbidthoughts (
talk)
21:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
With regard to your edit summary of "I'm not going to go looking for it", I would remind you that one of the prerequisites of nominating an article for deletion is "First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself". --
John B123 (
talk)
21:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
WP:BEFORE needs to identify good sources. The references are article fail the non-trivial reliable secondary source test (the subject's former website, blogs, press releases, interviews and award rosters). My own searches yielded trivial mentions and false positive matches. The nominator has asked, and I'm asking again, what are the good sources that support claims of notability?
• Gene93k (
talk)
14:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - once again !keep voters casting aspersions on AfD nominators unfairly.
WP:BEFORE is not an exhaustive process and just because one source has been found, doesn’t mean the nominator didn’t look. Having said that, !keep voters have presented no new sources nor explained why they believe the current sourcing is adequate (it isn’t).
WP:AGF in future please.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk)
00:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep based on the Complex article and everything else present in the article. Seemingly notable in their taboo field. —
Godsy (
TALKCONT)02:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The Complex article is an opinion piece with per-item links to related paid content. The writer specializes in lists of top-x things in pop culture. There are several performers on this list were deleted at AfD even before PORNBIO was taken down. Is top 50 a meaningfully selective cut for this niche of the industry?
• Gene93k (
talk)
04:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
For the purposes of filmography, I'd take (multiple corroborating) movie databases as reliable enough. Multiple awards also point into the very same direction.
Ipsign (
talk)
16:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Clarification: I mean movie DB via links which are already in the article (293 credits in the smallest one is IMO enough to say she is "prolific").
Ipsign (
talk)
14:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Porn films are produced quickly and in massive numbers. For that reason, "prolificness" was struck from the PORNBIO in ~2006–2007. Without independent reliable sources that acknowledge this as significant, it does not contribute to notability, especially a claim per
WP:ENT. Film databases don't even state significance, never mind prove it. Porn is pervasive, and most of it is unremarkable.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
a) 293 is "prolific" even by porn standards, ergo it satisfies
WP:ENT. b) as none of
WP:N policies mention "porn" now, saying"porn is pervasive" is not a valid argument; current policies are intentionally written in the way that it doesn't matter whether we are speaking about porn - or about, say, opera; in spite of common prejudices, from
WP:N point of view it all qualifies as entertainment, and policies are the same.
Ipsign (
talk)
18:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Porn is entertainment that largely lacks coverage by independent reliable sources. That's why PORNBIO was taken down and why claims of satisfy WP:ENT or WP:ANYBIO generally fail. Notability needs the acknowledgement of independent reliable sources. IMDb doesn't satisfy that requirement for mainstream actors. Wikipedia excused porn from most RS requirements for a long time. That was bad policy.
• Gene93k (
talk)
23:37, 11 May 2020 (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.