Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missy (actress)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missy (actress)[edit]

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

Missy (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AVN and a single newspaper fluff piece do not provide enough bio to hang an article on. IAFD is an inadequate source for the rest of the content. Fails notability. Spartaz Humbug! 23:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete one newspaper fluff piece does not show notability. Hopefully we can now make some real headway against this set of articles that was for so long propped up by a set of inclusion criteria that treated PR level awards as actually worth something.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though WP:PORNBIO was depreciated, the two hall of fame inductions are a pass of WP:ANYBIO Lightburst (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument was explicitly rejected when PORNBIO was depreciated and the argument is fundamentally whether this passes GNG or not. Spartaz Humbug! 18:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please direct me to the rejection of Hall of fame inductions. Lightburst (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can find the discussion about depreciating the SNG. If the community has wanted to keep HOF as a criteria they would have left that part. Spartaz Humbug! 19:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the RFC was concerned with minor Porn awards, the Hall of Fame was never discussed. I would argue it is the Highest award and well known, and therefore meets WP:ANYBIO. So I am still at Keep. Lightburst (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC applies to all porn awards. Award wins without independent reliable sources that acknowledge them as significant achievements satisfy neither WP:ENT nor WP:ANYBIO. WP:PORNBIO now expressly points to WP:BASIC and WP:ENT to avoid ANYBIO. In the past three months, four members of the AVN Hall of Fame (Luc Wylder, Mark Wood, Mandingo and Joanna Jet) have been deleted at AfD. Porn awards by themselves no longer establish notability in Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the Hall of fame - in fact two halls, is more than an award and has not been mentioned at all in that RFC. There are thousands and thousands of porn workers. Very few are in any hall of fame let alone two. 2002 AVN Hall of Fame inductee 2009 XRCO Hall of Fame inductee. Depreciated PORNBIO has caused me to vote delete 90% of the time. In this case, a deletion will be against our guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the deleted porn stars listed above (Luc Wylder and Mark Wood) are dual hall of fame inductees. Once again, porn honors minus acknowledgement by reliable sources != notability. This is an appeal to PORNBIO criterion #2. That entire SNG was taken down because it undermines the quality and credibility of Wikipedia as a reference work, hall of fame or not. If independent reliable sources are available to acknowledge a performer's contributions to porn, he or she can pass WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings, Lightburst. This is an important point. Porn awards mean nothing since WP:PORNBIO has been (explicitly and entirely) deprecated. Halls of fame, pantheons, top performers' lists, and all such items have been rendered irrelevant. A person can be in the hall of fame of the Greek game of barbouti or of the Peruvian sapo and it woud contribute to that person's Wikinotability precisely nothing. We have to offer something beyond porn to claim a subject is worthy of a Wikipedia article, e.g. WP:NCREATIVE, WP:GNG. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also point out that the problem with AVN "awards" is that AVN is simply a trade magazine, it is part and parcel of the industry. These "awards" are given to people that they have legal and business interests with. Zaathras (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to my comments above, the subject fails WP:ENTwithout support from independent reliable sources, and RS coverage is too thin to pass WP:BASIC. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Halls of Fame" that merely exist as a huge sturcture of PR pushing industry self-promotion cannot ever add to establishing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems to have only had minor roles and fails to meet WP:ENT. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Users can't make up their own "porn hall of fame equals notable!" notability guidelines. If there were another article like the San Diego Union-Tribune, it would squeak past and be kept, but that sole article isn't enough. Zaathras (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to show she meets WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 19:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's enough coverage for a biography based on sources like the San Diego Union Tribune, Men's Journal [1], and AVN [2] and other books[3][4]. I agree with Lightburst that her hall-of-fame status and multiple performer (not scene awards) are evidence towards ANYBIO and WP:ENT (criteria 3) given they were not explicitly rejected for those guidelines in the RFC deprecating PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These sources are kinda crap. Men's Journal is a blurb on the AVN award, the AVN link itself is porn industry self-promotion, the book cited as "[3]" doesn't appear to be an actual book at all. "The Mammoth Book of Best New Horror 20" is given as a title on the left, but it is just page after page of obituaries cribbed from an unknown source. Book "[4]" is "101 Nights of Grrreat Sex: Secret Sealed Seductions for Fun Loving Couples", a brief excerpt listing one of her films as good to bang to. Zaathras (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Naw. The Men's Journal is two paragraphs of coverage of the actual winning of the award that people have been bitching about not having enough coverage about with the awards themselves. Meanwhile, the AVN link is an obituary that I'm wondering where the self-promotion of a dead person is. You are now arguing about whether this shit is actually important versus how much coverage sources give her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm arguing about you stretching sources past the point of credulity to support non-existent criteria. Porn awards are not notable achievements. Neither is an obit for a dead sex worker something that counts towards notability. That most of them don't shuffle off by 40 is a testament to modern medicine. Zaathras (talk) 22:51, 25 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Missy_(actress)&oldid=932636482"