Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gracie Glam (2nd nomination)

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gracie Glam

[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)

I think its time to review if best new starlet is enough as its not worthy of its own article and winning the award clearly doesn't lead to adequate coverage... Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. While this performer may meet the letter of WP:PORNBIO, significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources does not appear to exist. The CNBC reference is a permanently dead link, but CNBC's "Dirty Dozen" is an annual listicle with a two-sentence entry per porn star. It is not significant coverage. The AVN and XBiz coverage is promotional in nature. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many articles about pornstars satisfy pornbio, but they can not escape a very characteristic pattern (Summarized Early life and career + Awards + References, usually AVN and XBIZ + External Links usually IAFD and AFD). If we exclude we create a dictatorship against porn since this happens with several biographies about sportsmen, youtubers etc ..., if we do not exclude we leave hundreds of articles that hardly stop being an stub. Maybe creating lists like AVN Award for Best Actress and redirecting to this not-so-well-notorian article is a solution.Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great suggestion. I would support that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz:But many do not agree. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVN Award for Best New Starlet Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guilherme Burn - yes, some users create a dictatorship against porn articles, it stings in the eye. Wikipedia need wider discussion about notability for all, about biographies in a general sense because a group of several still the same users created AfD pages for many articles about pornstars (with awards, many movies, even sometimes mentions in the press, movies, music videos outside porn industry)... and they do nothing with million nothing significant biographies about sportsmens, politics etc. This extremely violates the rule of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Common sense. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Subtropical-man: Per WP: GOODFAITH I believe it is a problem of WP: BALANCE. The media and the Academy ignore pornography, so wikipedia also ignores it. Per Lack of independent sources. So I strongly support the end of WP:PORNBIO and the use of other criteria of notoriety for pornstar.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clear meets of the WP:PORNBIO and also WP:GNG. Previous AfD is nearly 100% votes for keep. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, consensus can change. In the case of PORNBIO, consensus was changed to tighten the guideline twice since the first AfD debate. Most important, the "well-known and significant industry award" test excluded many niche award categories. The Best New Starlet award itself and at least two winners (Rachel Ashley and Holly Hendrix) have been deleted at AfD. As for GNG, please identify the significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The CNBC coverage is not significant and nearly all of the porn trade press is reworked press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Best New Starlet of AVN Award (Oscars of porn industry) meets of WP:PORNBIO. Porn-deletionism group constantly trying to push too very very very rigorous version (de facto this group recognize every award as not "well-known and significant"). I do not see the article Holly Hendrix (deleted, for only administrators) but I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Hendrix and still the same group of users: K.e.coffman, The Big Bad Wolfowitz aka Hullaballoo, John Pack Lambert, Davey2010 - (for years) this group lobbying for mass removal of porn-articles. Wikipedia:Meat puppetry describes such an actions. Your arguments have been refuted. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our more logical pornographic biography guidelines. I would argue even these are still way too broad. I tire of having a special set of guidelines for pornographic biographies and still think we should make them pass GNG for indepdent coverage, which virtually all would fail. No one has ever shown that these no name awards they keep speaking of lead to coverage in 3rd-party publications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the "AVN Award for Best New Starlet" is not significant and well known; significant RS coverage not found; sourcing is in passing, PR-driven, and / or primary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above. GNG failure without significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Protests about a deletionist cabal fail to produce evidence to the contrary. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cannot find any no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 10 February 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.