Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karla Lane

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2016 September 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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, there is a split on whether her only award is notable, and hence whether she passes PORNBIO. The award is relatively new, and it would be reasonable to repeat this nomination in several years to see whether there have been any changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Lane[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards or nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No non-trivial biographical content. "BBW Performer of the Year" is a recently created, little-noted niche award which fails the well-known/significant guideline standard. Even if this were to get a technical, tenuous PORNBIO pass, that is outweighed by the utter failure to even remotely approach meeting the GNG. PROD removed with inapposite edit summary but without article improvement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable figure in the pronographic industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets of PORNBIO, won of AVN Award. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:PORNBIO#1 with AVN BBW Performer of the Year Award, which is a well-known/significant industry award that is not a scene-related/ensemble category. The award is also proof that she meets PORNBIO#2, ("Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre"). Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yawn...yet another one of the nom's WP:IJDLI porn-related AfDs. Anyway, the other two keep !voters have already explained why this should be kept, but to add, I'll also point out that the admin who originally deleted this article did not object to its re-creation. (SN: If the nom tries to respond with one of his usual threats in all bold text, he's just wasting his time (sorry, bullies don't phase me).) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Seriously? The proporn fan club are really flexing their .. er .. muscles.. to claim this one. fails GNG yet they expect a niche award like this to allow a shit sourced BLP. No thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLP, as being an article about a living person with no reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PORNBIO does not carry as much weight as most notability guidelines; as with the other additional BIO criteria, it's closer to a notability suggestion. See WP:BIO § Additional criteria ("[M]eeting one or more [of the additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included."). The additional criteria are helpful shortcuts in most cases: when notability under WP:BASIC (or GNG) is plausible but disputed; but they should not be used to find notability where notability is clearly absent.
Here, the available coverage in reliable sources does not come close to meeting BASIC or satisfying the reasons for the notability requirement; thus, the article may not be retained. I will reconsider my vote if anyone can point to specific sources that satisfy BASIC or GNG that I may have overlooked in my BEFORE.
Also, I don't accept the suggestion that winning AVN's BBW Performer of the Year award proves that the subject "[h]as made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre." The award is going to go to someone whether the recipient's contributions are unique or merely the best that happened in a particular year. The rest of point 2 elucidates what a "unique contribution" likely entails: "beginning a trend in pornography; starr[ing] in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or [being] a member of an industry [h]all of [f]ame . . . ." Rebb ing 22:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But the point you're missing is that she does pass PORNBIO. She doesn't have to pass PORNBIO and an additional guideline. Another argument that a lot of the "delete" !voters seem to be making is that the award she won hasn't been around for very long. Even if that were true, I don't recall ever seeing a discussion where consensus was made than an award has to have been around for a certain amount of time for it to be notable. If there is such a discussion, someone please direct me to it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I didn't miss that point. Perhaps I should have been clearer, but my vote implicitly assumed that the subject meets PORNBIO. PORNBIO is a notability suggestion, not a notability guideline; by BIO's own words, it comes with caveats that BIO does not have: "[M]eeting one or more [of the additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
    The additional criteria are useful in mine run cases where notability is unclear: they let us sidestep researching and arguing about whether a particular set of sources provides sufficient significant coverage. But, per NRVE and the disclaimer accompanying the additional criteria and with support from the reasoning given in WHYN, the additional criteria like PORNBIO should not be used to find notability in unusual cases like this where notability under BIO is very clearly lacking.
    I'm not sure which votes you're referring to, but I agree that an award's longevity isn't relevant under PORNBIO point 1; what's relevant is whether or not that specific award (and not the organization that granted it) is a "well-known and significant industry award." Rebb ing 09:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, how could it be that the award itself is notable but the individual who won it isn't? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what this has to do with my vote, but, as a general comment, notability isn't usually inherited. An award can be notable without each of its recipients being notable. Cf. WP:NOTINHERIT; WP:BLP1E. Based on an examination of the article and a little research, I also find dubious the proposition that the AVN Award for BBW Performer of the Year is notable, but that's a conversation for another day. Rebb ing 09:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - PORNBIO is a notability "suggestion"? The last time I checked, it was indeed a guideline. And as for WP:NOTINHERITED, well, that's not exactly how that clause works; besides, you'll notice that it doesn't mention awards (in addition, NOTINHERITED isn't a guideline). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure why you persist in ignoring what I've said and raising irrelevant issues. By its own terms, meeting PORNBIO "does not guarantee that a subject should be included." I have explained, based on our guidelines, why, even accepting that the subject meets PORNBIO, she is not notable. If you're not going to engage with what I said and cited in my vote and what I clarified in response to your questions, you shouldn't bother replying. Furthermore, your incredulity that "the award itself is notable but the individual who won it isn't" has no bearing on this discussion or my vote and is patently ridiculous to boot, as '157 succinctly showed. Rebb ing 09:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        What exactly am I ignoring? I'm even quoting everything you said yourself. And you seem to be trying to invoke WP:IAR here, which is pretty much a cop-out. But you appear to be more interested in battling than anything else, so I think I'm done with you. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You've ignored the fact that my argument implicitly accepted that the subject meets PORNBIO. You've ignored the fact that the introductory notes to WP:BIO § Additional criteria state that meeting PORNBIO, while suggestive of notability, does not guarantee it. You've ignored the fact that my argument is explicitly predicated on the text of the guidelines and not IAR. You've raised the wholly irrelevant and laughably frivolous argument that, because the BBW Performer of the Year Award is (according to you) notable, it would be unreasonable not to find every one of its recipients to be notable. And now, after I've refuted your repeated bludgeoning, you say I'm the one looking for a battle and that my vote is a cop-out‽ If anything, your vote and comments here, in related AFDs, and at WT:BIO make clear that you are on a crusade to defend pornographic biographies—not to impartially evaluate notability. My only interest is in faithfully applying our notability guidelines, which I interpret, when possible, with special concern for the explanations given for them in WP:N, especially WP:WHYN and WP:NRVE. Rebb ing 11:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Check out who opened the AfDs for Alison Tyler and Alina Li and then ask again if I'm defending all porn bios. But you just reiterated again that Miss Lane passes PORNBIO, so...thanks, actually. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - An award being notable certainly doesn't make all of its recipients notable. As a child I received a Blue Peter badge, a very notable award, but I am not notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know perfectly well, Erpert. There are many notable awards -- Rhodes Scholarships, British crown honors, militaty medals are prominent examples -- where the awards and awardgivers are notable, but individual recipients aren't necessarily, or even presumptively notable. Both PORNBIO and the more general ANYBIO use the more restrictive "well-known"/"significant" standard. The more lenient "notable award" standard was removed from both guidelines, by strong consensus, years ago. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this meets the WP:GNG as stated above. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep automatically notable because she meets WP:PORNBIO #1 - "Has won a well-known and significant industry award." The AVN award easily qualifies. I notice that the delete votes basically echo the theme stated by Spartaz above: "The proporn fan club are really flexing their .. er .. muscles.. to claim this one" - being anti-porn is not a good reason to support the deletion of an article, sorry. ArchieOof (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a nice straw man you've built there. In recent memory, I voted to keep a pornographic performer's biography based on the her work's likely influence on a film I'd seen. Watching enough porn to be able to cite it at AFD is hardly "anti-porn." Turning to the merits, you'll see most of us did not use variations of Spartaz's vote, and, if you'll look at the section of BIO where PORNBIO is found, you'll read that meeting PORNBIO "does not guarantee that a subject should be included," so your claim that the subject is "automatically notable" is contrary to the guidelines. Rebb ing 10:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than seeing the subject as "automatically notable", percieve "Pornbio" as suggested criteria that can help push the subject over the line if it is a borderline case. This clearly not a borderline case, as has been shown above, and now below. Also, "Pornbio" can be seen as an entryway into the possibility of being notable. And labeling Ivotes that don't agree with your sentiments as "anti-porn" does nothing to shore-up your argument. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per archieoofPwolit iets (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- there's insufficient coverage in RS to satisfy GNG. No award makes a person "automatically notable" -- this is not how GNG and PORNBIO work. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, when it comes to pornographic actors, that's exactly how PORNBIO works when the award is notable. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not, and Erpert knows full well it's not. There's no exception for PORNBIO in WP:PEOPLE's express language that meeting an SNG "does not guarantee that a subject should be included". And the PORNBIO standard for awards is "well-known and significant", not "notable"; that higher standard was adopted by consensus long ago. Erpert may be willing to deliberately misstate applicable guidelines and standards to defends an article he created himself, but that just demonstrates that his opinions/arguments should be given no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Swimming past the bait... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: "that's exactly how PORNBIO works when the award is notable..." that's not how PORNBIO is worded. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said that's how it works. Anyone who wants to read the guideline verbatim can just, well, read it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are unable to determine the significance of this BBW award, because there appears to be no significant independent coverage of this award in reliable sources. The Wikipedia page itself "AVN Award for BBW Performer of the Year" has nine sources that are AVN press releases, and one "Fleshpot" reference, which is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. In fact, it is a porn industry mouthpiece.

In any case, the outcome is - this is pretty much an end-around - resulting in circumventing GNG, BLP, or ANYBIO based on the following argument: We have a Wikipedia article therefore this award is notable, therefore this performer is notable for having received this award. Except this award is not notable per ~~WP:V~~ WP:NRV and WP:WHYN. And notability is not inherited (if the award were notable). Additionally, this shows once again that Wikipedia is not to be considered a reliable source.

Furthermore, the AVN Awards as a ceremony might be notable, but the awards themselves usually do not receive significant coverage in multiple reliable sources - as is the case here. In particular, the references in the BBW Performer of the Year article pertain to the AVN awards ceremony, where awards and awardees receive only passing mention in these promotional materials - never mind mainstream reliable sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources in the article not reliable? And the individual awards having to have multiple instances of mainstream coverage has never been a requirement (mainstream coverage would help if the actor didn't pass notability any other way; like, say, Charlotte Stokely or Kelly Shibari). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the two articles mentioned above would meet Wiki's notability guidelines; I tagged them both as such. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources not reliable? Of the three sources with nontrivial biographical content, two are press releases/PR copy and the third is a promotional interview from a site ("Porn Corporation", very NSFW) with no reputation for accuracy or fact-checking. The only likely independent, reliable source in the article, a Daily Dot piece, says next to nothing about Karla Lane, but does report that the AVN Award she received "didn’t include an actual trophy or any stage time. At the annual show, BBW is one of several category awards—along with MILF, BDSM, and most of the transsexual awards—that is not presented during the ceremony". If the awardgiver treats the award so dismissively, it's clear it doesn't view the award as significant, and there's no legitimate argument that anyone else should. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the AVN Award ceremony doesn't view the award as significant simply because the award wasn't shown in the broadcast is your own opinion. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not my opinion, since that's not at all what I said. Deliberately misrepresenting the statements of editors you disagree with is dishonest and disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the "dishonest and disruptive" excuse again. That's still not going to work. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...}

That is not merely anyone's opinion. The article clearly demonstrates that AVN does not think this award has any significance, because the "AVN Award she received 'didn’t include an actual trophy or any stage time"'. Misattribution to an editor's "personal opinion" while linked to WP:SYN, as in this case, is a personal attack. And implying or stating another editor is engaged in baiting other editors, which you have done twice in this AfD, is another form of personal attack. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the article demonstrates this how? (BTW, my being called disruptive and in turn not giving in is a personal attack? Yeah, good luck with that one.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good job in seeming to not get the point, on how this article demonstrates AVN does not think this award has any signifigance. Also, I am not seeing where you were not giving in. You followed being described as disruptive with an indication that you were being baited. All I have to do is hover over the words "That's still not going to work" to see these are linked to WP:BAIT - which is the second time pertaining to the same editor. I am not seeing any supposed altruism with that reply. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't actually answer my question. But returning to the discussion...actually, why is this even still open? It's been over two weeks. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While many of the AVN Awards are notable, I'm not convinced the relatively new "BBW Performer of the Year" meets the PORNBIO standard "well-known and significant industry award" currently. She also doesn't currently meet the GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Keep arguments. Plus she averages 150 pageviews a day (an unofficial sign she's notable).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for an AVN Performer Award. That this award is new might be because her niche is propably quite new. However, the Award is just like other AVN Performer of the Year Awards, the Female Performer of the Year Award being their prototype. It should not be too hard to notice that it is the highest honour an oversized performer could ever get. In other words from all oversized performers out there, she's one of only 2 or 3 that will get noticed. So writing an article for one of the few popular BBW stars would just make sense for me. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to pass GNG. Also laughable that a BBW is described as 'niche' though ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing, searches fail to support notability. that award looks very minor, and is not supported by the kind of secondary sources that major awards have in any field.14:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

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.