Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Deauxma (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:31, 20 September 2013 editJreferee (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,390 edits Comment← Previous edit Revision as of 18:13, 20 September 2013 edit undoErpert (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers48,274 edits →Deauxma: cmtNext edit →
Line 23: Line 23:
*:13. . Fifteen nominations for her category; 208 total nominations in performer categories by my count. *:13. . Fifteen nominations for her category; 208 total nominations in performer categories by my count.
*:So the sum total of our independent, reliable, secondary sources is "2013 NOMINEES... Best Actress - All-Girl Release... Deauxma, Road Queen 22 (Girlfriends Films)"; "2011 Nominations for the 2011 AVN Awards... MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year... Deauxme"; and "2013 NOMINATIONS... MILF/COUGAR PERFORMER OF THE YEAR... DEAUXMA". Even if one accepts ] at face value and argues that these three nominations amidst 824! others are for "well-known and significant award" despite ''their'' total absence of secondary coverage, there's simply not enough material here to write a neutral and verifiable biography. '''Delete'''. ] (]) 10:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC) *:So the sum total of our independent, reliable, secondary sources is "2013 NOMINEES... Best Actress - All-Girl Release... Deauxma, Road Queen 22 (Girlfriends Films)"; "2011 Nominations for the 2011 AVN Awards... MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year... Deauxme"; and "2013 NOMINATIONS... MILF/COUGAR PERFORMER OF THE YEAR... DEAUXMA". Even if one accepts ] at face value and argues that these three nominations amidst 824! others are for "well-known and significant award" despite ''their'' total absence of secondary coverage, there's simply not enough material here to write a neutral and verifiable biography. '''Delete'''. ] (]) 10:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
::*So are you saying that she would have to be nominated for 824 awards to be considered notable? Now that it has become clearer that ] ''is'' still a valid guideline (if it weren't, it would be redlinked), it seems like now the deletion rationale is, "Oh, but you know what? These sources aren't independent because...um...um..." followed by something really ]. Yes, the sources may not be independent...to ''you.'' If y'all really have a problem with PORNBIO, don't clog up an AfD; there's a pretty solid discussion going on about that. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:yellow;">]</span></sup></small> 18:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Being in porn and having a twin sister just isn't enough. ] (]) 13:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Being in porn and having a twin sister just isn't enough. ] (]) 13:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Given that the general ] guideline states at the very top that it is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, I do not see how meeting the subject-specific guideline WP:PORNBIO to the general notability guideline would provide such a guarantee. There needs to be enough valid content to fill a written account of that person's life in an article about the person to have the topic handled as a separate, stand-alone page. See ]. Being nominated or winning an award, making unique contributions, staring, being a member of a Hall of Fame as listed at WP:PORNBIO - these merely require editors to presume that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, if the closer finds that consensus is that Deauxma meets criteria 1 or 2 at WP:PORNBIO, then the topic should be handled as a separate, stand-alone page if editors at AfD cannot show that the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Proving a negative is difficult. I searched an online database of print published source material and did not find enough source material for a stand alone article. However, I do not think that, by itself, overcomes the presumption that arises from meeting WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2. There also is non-electronic databases and source material such as ], ], etc.). This topic is more likely to receive offline reliable source coverage than online reliable source coverage. If an editor at AfD indicates that they search the topic in non-electronic sources (offline sources) and did not find enough source material to justify a stand-alone article, that would be significant and help prove the negative - to overcome the WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2 presumption that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 74.74.150.139's review above also is significant. What it says is that those who have an interest in this topic and a motivation to search for reliable source material in offline sources were not able to find enough offline source material to justify a stand-alone article on the topic. The close can take that into account. -- ] (]) 13:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC) *'''Comment''' - Given that the general ] guideline states at the very top that it is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, I do not see how meeting the subject-specific guideline WP:PORNBIO to the general notability guideline would provide such a guarantee. There needs to be enough valid content to fill a written account of that person's life in an article about the person to have the topic handled as a separate, stand-alone page. See ]. Being nominated or winning an award, making unique contributions, staring, being a member of a Hall of Fame as listed at WP:PORNBIO - these merely require editors to presume that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, if the closer finds that consensus is that Deauxma meets criteria 1 or 2 at WP:PORNBIO, then the topic should be handled as a separate, stand-alone page if editors at AfD cannot show that the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Proving a negative is difficult. I searched an online database of print published source material and did not find enough source material for a stand alone article. However, I do not think that, by itself, overcomes the presumption that arises from meeting WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2. There also is non-electronic databases and source material such as ], ], etc.). This topic is more likely to receive offline reliable source coverage than online reliable source coverage. If an editor at AfD indicates that they search the topic in non-electronic sources (offline sources) and did not find enough source material to justify a stand-alone article, that would be significant and help prove the negative - to overcome the WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2 presumption that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 74.74.150.139's review above also is significant. What it says is that those who have an interest in this topic and a motivation to search for reliable source material in offline sources were not able to find enough offline source material to justify a stand-alone article on the topic. The close can take that into account. -- ] (]) 13:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:13, 20 September 2013

Deauxma

AfDs for this article:
Deauxma (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)

A pornographic actress whose notability is contested. At Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2013 September 10, a request to recreate this article, originally deleted in 2006 and protected since 2007, turned into a full-fledged sourcing / notability debate but did not result in a consensus. Because content decisions are to be made via AfD, I'm exercising my DRV closer's discretion to refer the article (in the form of the draft proposed for recreation) to AfD for a decision about the sourcing / notability issue. This being a procedural nomination, I myself express no opinion about that issue.  Sandstein  12:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO, without multiple nominations for well-known/significant awards. Fails the GNG, because there are no reliable sources for biographical content -- all the references, beyond databases and laundry lists, are either promotional pages or press releases. Fails BLP requirements, as an article concerning a living person without reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deauxma passes WP:PORNBIO because she has been nominated for three "well-known and significant industry awards" by AVN and XBIZ and none of them are for "scene-related and ensemble categories". Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per nominations. I can find no consensus that "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" is not a significant industry award category, so even without the other references (which are reliable), she still passes WP:PORNBIO. Erpert 18:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, per what was said in the DRV. Industry-internal awards – and much more so mere nominations for them – are "significant" only if and insofar their significance is reflected in coverage by other, reliable, independent (i.e. non-industry-internal) sources. Show me the coverage of the "MILF/Cougar..." nomination process in independent media; then and only then can we talk about notability. (Ceterum censeo WP:PORNBIO has lacked consensus for years and has for that reason long ceased to be a valid guideline.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "WP:PORNBIO has lacked consensus for years and has for that reason long ceased to be a valid guideline." That still isn't true, no matter how badly you may want it to be (and I'm not going to elaborate on that because it has already been explained to you several times). And you want the "keep" !voters to show you the coverage of a nomination process? Not only is that impossible (unless we actually work for AVN or XBIZ, that is), but I don't recall WP:ANYBIO requiring any such thing. Erpert 08:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Analysis of the currently-cited sources:
    1. Internet Adult Film Database: not a reliable source. WP:BIO#Notes #6 summarizes the many previous discussions on this better than I can.
    2. Southern Charms Happenings, 3. Orgasm News, 4. Barelist: all interviews with minimal analysis. Primary.
    5. AVN, 6. AVN, 8. XBIZ, 9. AVN, 10. XBIZ: A mix of press releases and minimally-edited reprints of press releases (they didn't even fix the typos!). Not independent.
    7. 2013 XBIZ award nominations. Ten nominations for her category; 311 total nominations in performer categories by my count.
    11. Deauxmalive.com: Article subject's website. Not independent.
    12. 2011 AVN award nominations via archive.org. Fifteen nominations for her category; 305 total nominations in performer categories by my count.
    13. 2013 AVN award nominations via archive.org. Fifteen nominations for her category; 208 total nominations in performer categories by my count.
    So the sum total of our independent, reliable, secondary sources is "2013 NOMINEES... Best Actress - All-Girl Release... Deauxma, Road Queen 22 (Girlfriends Films)"; "2011 Nominations for the 2011 AVN Awards... MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year... Deauxme"; and "2013 NOMINATIONS... MILF/COUGAR PERFORMER OF THE YEAR... DEAUXMA". Even if one accepts WP:PORNBIO at face value and argues that these three nominations amidst 824! others are for "well-known and significant award" despite their total absence of secondary coverage, there's simply not enough material here to write a neutral and verifiable biography. Delete. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • So are you saying that she would have to be nominated for 824 awards to be considered notable? Now that it has become clearer that WP:PORNBIO is still a valid guideline (if it weren't, it would be redlinked), it seems like now the deletion rationale is, "Oh, but you know what? These sources aren't independent because...um...um..." followed by something really longwinded. Yes, the sources may not be independent...to you. If y'all really have a problem with PORNBIO, don't clog up an AfD; there's a pretty solid discussion going on here about that. Erpert 18:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Being in porn and having a twin sister just isn't enough. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Given that the general Misplaced Pages:Notability guideline states at the very top that it is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, I do not see how meeting the subject-specific guideline WP:PORNBIO to the general notability guideline would provide such a guarantee. There needs to be enough valid content to fill a written account of that person's life in an article about the person to have the topic handled as a separate, stand-alone page. See Misplaced Pages:Notability (people). Being nominated or winning an award, making unique contributions, staring, being a member of a Hall of Fame as listed at WP:PORNBIO - these merely require editors to presume that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, if the closer finds that consensus is that Deauxma meets criteria 1 or 2 at WP:PORNBIO, then the topic should be handled as a separate, stand-alone page if editors at AfD cannot show that the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Proving a negative is difficult. I searched an online database of print published source material and did not find enough source material for a stand alone article. However, I do not think that, by itself, overcomes the presumption that arises from meeting WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2. There also is non-electronic databases and source material such as AVN (magazine), Alternative newspaper, etc.). This topic is more likely to receive offline reliable source coverage than online reliable source coverage. If an editor at AfD indicates that they search the topic in non-electronic sources (offline sources) and did not find enough source material to justify a stand-alone article, that would be significant and help prove the negative - to overcome the WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2 presumption that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 74.74.150.139's review above also is significant. What it says is that those who have an interest in this topic and a motivation to search for reliable source material in offline sources were not able to find enough offline source material to justify a stand-alone article on the topic. The close can take that into account. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Categories: