Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany CoxXx

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany CoxXx

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Most of the sources are adult industry publicity and ~~thus not independent, and those that aren't~~ don't give significant coverage 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Sexuality and gender. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is sourced extensively to different articles on AVN, which is a green-level source for pornography-related articles at WP:RSP. Easy GNG pass with multiple green-level RS. —Kbabej (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to AVN (magazine): "The magazine is about 80% ads and is targeted at adult-video retailers. Author David Foster Wallace has described AVN articles to be more like infomercials than articles". It might be reliable, but I don't see how it's independent. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ficaia, it's still a green-level RS. And it's completely independent. The subject doesn't own a stake in that company, and I don't see anywhere that they've paid for articles. Do you have any information that isn't on the page to the contrary? It's like Politico covering politicians, or Playbill covering theatre; AVN covers porn and pornstars. They're the experts in that field. --Kbabej (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving that aside, most of these references are to movie reviews and interviews. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ficaia What do you mean "leaving that aside"? The premise for your deletion nomination isn't valid. AVN is a RS on WP whether you agree or not; it's used 17 different times on the article. Articles solely about the subject include this one, and there is a wide range of coverage otherwise, from award nominations to film reviews. The latter obviously appear much more, which should be common sense since the subject was a porn actor. Reviews include films where the subject is obviously the star, since the subject appears in the name of the film, like Stonie Slept Here and Brittany's Transformation. The cameo in the mainstream film Bruno also got coverage. I think this easily passes GNG and you aren't understanding what "independent" means. --Kbabej (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second part of my deletion rationale was about sigcov, which I think is lacking here. You have presented one good source, but most of those "17 different times" AVN is cited, the reference is to an interview or a trivial review like this. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ficaia I'm surprised you can argue there's not enough sigcov. The ref you pulled is 1 out of 50. A JRL Charts article covered her life and career in depth after she died, where writer Keith Witchka said her death "...sent shockwaves throughout the gay adult film industry" and that she was a "superstar" (here). The AVN article solely about her life written by Sherri L. Shaulis had porn heavyweights Chi Chi LaRue and Paul Barresi pay tribute, and said she performed with "every major gay porn studio" (here). In Gay Porn Times by J. C. Adams, Adams wrote "Very few bits of news have generated as much buzz" as the film Brittany's Transformation, which was named for the subject (here). Before that film was shot Adams wrote articles solely about the subject here and here. --Kbabej (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has a variety of sources and the main objection seems to be one user's arbitrary rejection of some of them. --Cake-in-the-rain (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice joke. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she was really famous, even played Borat's son. No good reason to delete this. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2022 (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.