| Revision as of 18:07, 19 September 2013 editErpert (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers48,276 edits !vote← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:45, 19 September 2013 edit undoFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,196 edits →Deauxma: dNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Keep'''. Deauxma passes ] because she has been nominated for three "well-known and significant industry awards" by ] and ] and none of them are for "scene-related and ensemble categories". ] (]) 17:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. Deauxma passes ] because she has been nominated for three "well-known and significant industry awards" by ] and ] and none of them are for "scene-related and ensemble categories". ] (]) 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, so even without the other references (which ''are'' reliable), she still passes ]. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:yellow;">]</span></sup></small> 18:07, 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, so even without the other references (which ''are'' reliable), she still passes ]. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:yellow;">]</span></sup></small> 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'' ] has lacked consensus for years and has for that reason long ceased to be a valid guideline.) ] ] 21:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:45, 19 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, 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)