Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikita Denise

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. As noted, WP:PORNBIO is no longer a guideline, and most of the detailed points about whether porn awards might still satisfy WP:ANYBIO appear to lean towards the notion that the award mentioned here is too obscure/too poorly covered to qualify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Denise[edit]

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

Nikita Denise (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)

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Fails WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I generally stay far away from this type of discussion except for the fact the article imho shouldn't even be nominated for deletion. Not that I am a porn expert but isn't the Female Performer of the Year the biggest award in the adult film industry. Seems like she certainly would have had enough coverage over those couple years to meet WP:GNG. The article may not contain the proper references but it seems fairly neutral and she definitely meet the notability guidelines. They are the Oscar's of porn and she has 6 of them? I am not doing the research but i am certain she has enough press within the adult industry. 2601:989:4300:7EE4:7990:CA17:BDF9:A323 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Porn awards no longer establish notability by themselves, and asserting there are sources without doing the research just won't fly. WP:PORNBIO has been superseded by WP:ENT and WP:BASIC. The only plausibly-reliable non-trivial reliable source coverage comes from AVN ([1] [2]). That falls short on WP:BASIC especially since one cite is a primary source and the other is a one-paragraph blurb. The evidence to support WP:ENT notability is insufficient. I did search for sources and found nothing substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assessment that the AVN comeback article is a primary source. Yes, it does feature quotes from her through presumably an interview. However, it is a secondary source because the author synthesizes the information gleaned from Denise along with other information into an article rather than a verbatim transcript of the interview. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in my !vote below, even allowing AVN as a reliable source, it is only one source. It is not sufficient to satisfy WP:BASIC. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • PORNBIO was deprecated for just this reason. Claims of a "well-known and significant award or honor" of "widely recognized contribution" need the support of independent reliable sources. The consensus at RFC was that winning porn industry awards does not indicate likely notability by itself. The guidance for porn performers at WP:BIO specifically indicates using WP:ENT and WP:BASIC. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I interpret ANYBIO by its plain language meaning. Determinations of what is well-known and significant is subjective and what is "widely recognized as part of the enduring historical record" to me (again subjective) in this specific field is AVN's Hall of Fame. Nothing in the RFC reflects a consensus that ANYBIO applies to every biography except for porn stars. All deprecation of PORNBIO did was introduce confusion to people who are not experts in this topic. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Morbidthoughts. The two awards he mentioned are the two highest achievements a porn performer can achieve in the porn industry. If this gets deleted, it's just leading to the eventual deletion the vast majority of porn performer articles, even the ones that had significant achievement in their field because a very small number get significant coverage in mainstream press. It's ridiculous that the sports people have very lenient notability standards but there's no substantial coverage for many of them. They don't even have to even score a point in a game they played in. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bd2412 T 00:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I came across this page the other day and had the same beliefs. Awards do not = notability if your career isn’t notable to begin with. Porn “stars” win awards then just disappear evidently. Trillfendi (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. It fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. SarahSV (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blp fails gng = fail Spartaz Humbug! 10:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Female performer of the year award and her AVN Hall of Fame status satisfies criteria WP:ANYBIO Wikipedia should have no bias or a tougher litmus test regarding adult film stars. Passes WP:ENT because of her contributions (Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.). Lubbad85 (☎) 00:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:A central factor in deprecating PORNBIO was that porn awards generally failed the "well-known and significant" standard of ANYBIO -- that there was no correlation generally between recognition by such an award and receiving substantive, independent, reliable-source coverage, and that such an association was the best way to determine significance. Also underlying the deprecation was the widely held belief, particularly within the industry, that award recipients were selected to promote the financial interests of the awardgivers -- that, for example, AVN award recipients and whole categories were selected to promote AVN's advertisers, not to actually recognize stature or achievement in the field. Such awards also generally fail the ANYBIO standard. Also, the article does not cite any "significant roles" in notable works, so the claim of meeting WP:ENT is invalid on its face. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 00:43, 13 May 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/Nikita_Denise&oldid=897622110"