Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Calvert (actress)

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Calvert (actress)[edit]

[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)

Fails PORNBIO. Can't agree she passes GNG either Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG by having some mainstream references and WP:ENT#2.[1]Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What part of WP:PORNBIO does she fail, exactly? (SN: Guilherme Burn, while I agree that the article should be kept, her Instagram account isn't a good source; better sources include: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are sources written by the subject, rather than about her, any better than Instagram? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Instagram account isn't a good source" Why not? For the listed requirement I believe good.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on coverage in independent reliable sources. What the subject writes about herself on Instagram is neither independent nor reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: It is not a question of "What the subject writes about herself", but rather of number of fans.Guilherme Burn (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. As I said, notability is based on coverage in independent reliable sources. Number of fans has nothing to do with it. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guilherme Burn, you're really not helping. Anyway, to answer Phil Bridger's concerns, most of those articles are written by her, not about her, which proves a career outside of porn (not that that's a requirement anyway). Also, even if PORNBIO was the only issue here, it hasn't actually been explained how she fails it; instead, most of the delete !votes (not yours, Phil) are from the usual group of "delete" !voters in porn-related AfDs. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources written by the subject are not considered to contribute towards notability for anyone else, so why should they be so considered for porn actors? The only other source that you linked is clearly a press release, so also not independent. And I don't see any "delete" opinions here based on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, which you linked, but based on notability guidelines. In fact you are the one arguing on the basis of of personal likes rather than independent reliable sources. The fact that many of the same editors make the same valid points in other deletion discussions doesn't make their statements here any less valid. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources aren't prohibited (see WP:PRIMARY); if they were, many journalists probably wouldn't have articles (see many of the subjects under Category:MSNBC people). Anyway, as for the idea that I'm the one arguing the other point, well, you probably haven't taken part in many of the other porn-related AfDs over the years. Speaking of that, in these types of AfDs, people who commonly !vote "delete" (again, not you), argue that the article doesn't have any independent sourcing from the subject, but "independent" always seems to be confused to suggest that most of the sources should be independent of pornography (pornography is a category; the title of the article itself is the subject). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sustained coverage needed to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ENT; significant RS coverage not found. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources cited in the article are independent and reliable, and the sources offered above in support are obviously not either. The only one not written by the subject herself is clearly a press release. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She meets WP:PORNBIO ("The person has won a well-known and significant industry award"). You need to check the WP:BEFORE. These people do not often screen well on quality RS for GNG for obvious reasons, hence WP:PORNBIO. Note that Spartz is an administrator but has put a whole list of PORNBIO's up for AfD quoting that they "don't meet GNG", which has attracted the group above who support their AfD and make no reference to PORNBIO (but quote GNG). We should be following WP:PAG. Britishfinance (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which award(s) do you consider to pass WP:PORNBIO? The only ones listed in the article are in the "Unsung Siren" category, so, by its very title, for non-notable performers, and a group award which is specifically excluded by WP:PORNBIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "Unsung Siren" category is an XRCO Award, which is one of the two major awards explicitly listed under WP:PORNBIO, and which also being a solo award (you can check it here under XRCO Award#Unsung Siren), also meets the WP:PORNBIO requirement that "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration". You may not like the subject (and clearly many above don't), but the WP rules are the rules. She passes WP:PORNBIO. Britishfinance (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading the same WP:PORNBIO that I am? There's nothing there that says that every minor category of the XRCO awards leads to notability, but only that inclusion in the XRCO Hall of Fame does. This is nothing about whether I like the subject or not, but about applying Wikipedia guidelines and policies, including WP:BLP, which many editors seem to ignore when it comes to porn actors. Are they somehow subhuman? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PORNBIO highlights two of the awards that it considers signicfiant by listing their halls of fame - AVN and XRCO (I'm sure that the case for other porn awards such as the XBIZ Award etc. can also be made, but that is not needed here). Outside of clarifying group/shared awards, it does not add further qualification about types of individual AVN or XRCO awards. All of the individual XRCO Award#Unsung Siren award winners since 1993 to 2018 are listed and referenced on the WP XRCO Awards article. Note, it turns out that she also won another solo XRCO Award in 2018 as well, and I have updated her BLP for this. Britishfinance (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, being in a hall of fame is not the same as winning a minor award. The fact that Calvert was still unsung three years after first receiving an award for being unsung is that very unusual thing that we get at a deletion discussion, positive evidence of non-notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is about winning an AVN Award, or an XRCO Award. And she has two (in a solo category, which is the only category that WP:PORNBIO is specific about). You are trying to argue a case of non-notability from winning a notable award (as recorded and listed in the WP XRCO article since 1993). Britishfinance (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About fifty years ago I won a very notable award, a Blue Peter badge, but that doesn't make me notable. The award that Calvert won is far from "a well-known and significant industry award" as required by WP:PORNBIO, being one of the many minor awards that any trade group in any industry gives. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would if the winners of Blue Peter Badges were discretely watched by tens of millions of people per day on BluePeter.com sites; and WP:BLUEPETERBIO clarified that because nobody wants to be associated with watching Blue Peter Badge winners (including Tier 1 RS), they should be recorded on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Erpert - Given the notable awards won as well as the indepth sources above this is an easy keep, Meets PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2019 (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.