Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaitlyn Ashley (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 keep. Seems like the award here may be enough to meet PORNBIO. No consensus on the GNG question raised by K.e.coffman, seeing as offline sources may exist but weren't found and discussed (yet). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn Ashley

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

This page having survived a previous deletion request just shows how we are still suffering from flawed decisions made on content back in 2005. The argument basically was "she appeared in lots of pornographic films, she must be notable." The problem is that no one actually bothered to demonstrate anything she appeared in was notable. The sources we have are 1-an interview with her, not what we need, 2-Internationa Adult Movie internet database, a non-reliable source, and 3-a bunch of sourcing from promotional stuff pornographic industry websites, that are about the PR creating awards that they give out in the pronographic industry like candy. Nothing at all comes close to meeting even the most basic GNG requirements that we have multiple indepth reliable 3rd party sources, none of the sources are 3rd party, nor are any indepth, and I am struggling to see any of the sources as reliable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I interpret WP:PORNBIO correctly this article should be kept. She won an AVN award (which seems to be the most industry relevant award for this profession according to WP discussion in other AFDs) two times and is a member of the AVN Hall of Fame. She may not really pass WP:GNG (arguable, I didn't perform a search), but this way she passes the SNG WP:PORNBIO (point 1 and 2) easily. Notability is therefore established. Dead Mary (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes Pornbio easily as Dead Mary pointed out above. Performer of the Year and Hall of Fame induction are two the highest achievement a porn performer can achieve and Best Supporting Actress is arguably one of upper tier awards as well. And the nominators assertion that the awards are "PR creating" is ridiculous especially in the case of her Hall of Fame induction as she retired several years prior. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject clearly meets the PORNBIO guideline with AVN Hall of Fame induction. In cases like this, I'll trust that this stub will be filled out eventually, even if that will take a while. As for the previous discussion, neither the delete nomination nor the keep votes cited anything beyond "notable"/"not notable". • Gene93k (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more or less per Gene3k. There may be a case for redirecting the page to the AVN Hall of Fame list, but it appears likely that sufficient sources to write a more satisfactory bio are available, if difficult to access online. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gene93k - Meets PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame where the subject is mentioned. There's zero WP:SIGCOV RS coverage on the subject in the article. The sources include:

Kaitlyn Ashley at the Internet Adult Film Database -- directory listing
L. Blisset (1997-04-28). "A Kaitlyn Ashley interview". RAME. Retrieved 2014-05-26. -- interview with the subject
Tod Hunter. "Hall Of Fame: Kaitlyn Ashley". AVN. Archived from the original on April 9, 2002. -- not an independent source
"Adult Video News Award Winners - 1994". RAME. 1995-07-18. -- primary source
"Adult Video News Award Winners - 1995". RAME. 1996-01-08. -- primary source
"2001 AVN Awards Winners". AVN. Archived from the original on February 3, 2001. -- primary source

There's a list notability and there's individual notability. Ms Ashley may be notable for inclusion into the encyclopedia, but no RS have been presented to build out a biography of the subject, per WP:WHYN. In this case, a redirect to a list is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WHYN is a part of the rationale for WP:GNG, not a guideline, and doesn't necessarily apply to WP:GNG. There is no requirement to have articles on notable topics. Unscintillating (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AVN Hall of Fame until someone actually finds sources that can clearly establish notability, which has not occurred here . Keep the bluelink to avoid future AfD debates and further waste of bandwidth. Montanabw^(talk) 07:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - NOTE: I've recently made some edits to the article in question here. The subject here "has won a well-known and significant industry award" (namely the AVN Awards for both Best Supporting Actress & Female Performer of the Year, which are both major & significant award categories) and has also been inducted into "an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame".

I would note that the recent proposed change to PORNBIO (which apparently still does not seem to have consensus?) did not remove the "is a member of the AVN or XRCO hall of fame" wording from PORNBIO. IAFD is also a reliable source for basic biographic information & adult filmographies, and there are currently no "primary sources" contained in this subject's article here.

I would also note that the nominator's "reasoning" for this intentionally POINTy AfD unfortunately sounds an awful lot like a case of "I don't like it". Given that this user's recent behavior at AfD was recently reviewed at AN/I, I would kindly caution them against further POINTy AfD behavior in the future. Guy1890 (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I don't believe that the comment immediately above is quite in compliance with WP:NPA, as it does not link to the ANI thread and omits the fact that no action was taken against John Pack Lambert at the ANI thread. The disagreement was resolved with no sanctions. Here's the thread: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2016 (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.