Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Day

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Day

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

minor awards only ; none of the refs are RSs for notability DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better improvement. Pinging users who are familiar with this subject, Gene93k, Spartaz, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Davey2010 and also past users of this article Dismas, Asarelah, Missvain and Varnent. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @SwisterTwister:, you vote for delete and you pinging (four) users who in 99% similar cases vote for delete (including user who always [100%] vote for delete and second user who create of 97% pages of Articles for deletion for pornstars etc) - it has signs of meatpuppetry. Also, you pinging users who have contribution to the article? Why there are Varnent and Missvain with 3-4 minor changes (mainly the addition of templates of BLP sources etc) and you not pinging user @Photofrog: who made a lot of changes to the article? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, I'm not entirely familiar nor interested with the pornography industry but those users are regardless of what they say so they are welcome to comment. I was not going to ping Photofrog because they are not obviously active so there's no urgent point of notifying them. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

forgive me, but there are more users active in the topic of pornography (including inclusionists and participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography) but... you ping only group of most active delectionist of pornography, including "king" of votes for delete in pornography in Wikipedia [100% votes for delete] and second user who is "king" of create pages for delection pornography article (in the last months, author of 97-98% of all pages of articles for deletion about pornography in English Wikipedia), so, this very much stings the eyes.
ok, Photofrog in recent times are not active but why are ping users who some months ago made 3-4 minor changes (mainly the addition of templates of BLP sources etc)? if you want more voters, please add info to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sub Man - With the greatest of respect ... Please shut up!, ST pings everyone in AFDs and this is no different, As he explained on his TP he simply pings everyone so stop causing unnecessary dramah and edit go edit elsewhere. –Davey2010^Talk 21:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davi, you wrong. If user calling on the help of users (pinging), which he knows that these users can help (also votes like he) - this is meatpuppetry. I have the right to explain the matter because it is about a serious violation.
SwisterTwister, I assume good will (Wikipedia:Assume good faith) but in the future, please be careful with such things. For me, case closed. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But he's not wanting our help ... I've more than once !voted the opposite to him and that's with him pinging me!, As I said he only pings those who frequently edit those AFDs ... It's not meatpuppetry in the slightest and he's not violated anything in the slightest so give it a rest will you. –Davey2010^Talk 21:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Only informing the users who usually vote just like he in this case and not informing opponents and also not informing neutral users in case (for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography) is very suspicious. User who encourages to vote (pinging) users about which he knows or guess how they will vote is typical meatpuppetry. One year ago, in similar vote (but not relate to pornography) I have witnessed when administrators are confirmed it and user was blocked for 48 hours. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as we've had this bullshit discussion already a few years ago and the reasons for deletion didn't get better. Everybody agrees that she neither won an Oscar nor a Noble Prize, but talking her successes down is nothing but elitism. --MadScientist2410 (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MadScientist2410 When was this "discussion"? as this article was seemingly never AfD nominated and it was only speedied as A7 in 2010. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per SwisterTwister - Fails PORNBIO, NACTOR and GNG. (Thanks ST for the ping). –Davey2010^Talk 21:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's sound assessment. Fails both the applicable SNGs and the GNG. Sourcing falls far below BLP standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with a minor award win and lots of nominations. Fails GNG as the nominator states. Lacks coverage by independent, reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't usually vote in these pornbio nominations, but after reading the accusation of canvassing, I did a few searches to see if I could turn up anything. I really don't see much at all except what's already in the article, and it's mostly primary sources or nominations. An argument could be made that her work in feminist fetish porn satisfies WP:PORNBIO criterion #2, but there's very little to actually substantiate that besides a few interviews on blogs and the nominations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this discussion was had several years ago and after adjustments were made to the article it was brought to specification and met guidelines. No one's claiming she has achieved world achievements such as a World Peace Award or an Emmy Award but her success is validated by the industry in which she has participated in and continues to be recognized for her achievements within it, all of which are verifiable. A personal opinion claiming they are less than the achievements they are is elitism. Achieves PORNBIO with an award win of a world recognized and international equivalent to the United State's AVN Award as well as nominated multiple times by the top two US awards associations which are the adult equivalent to the Oscars. She has also been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.--photofrog (talk) 1:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep I second that this is a bullshit discussion in the first place and seems to be coming from individuals that have noting better to do then troll this page. The Feminist Pron Awards is a international recognized Award that is a big deal in the adult industry. Also this discussion to delete this page and remove her continuing success is elitism. This page and all the references are legit.--pennyrider15 (talk) 2:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I note from their web page they gave 16 awards that year. I'm not sure of the notability of their awards, as it's run by an adult store in Canada. Any evidence they;re regarded as equivalent to the AVN? DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In evaluating that claim, it's worth taking into account that 1) pennyrider15 has made no other edits and 2) in connection with the upload of the photo in the article, photofrog self-identified as the person named in the article as the subject's husband, and only edits pages related to this subject. More than a little COI here, it appears. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PORNBIO. I was not pinged in this case but SwisterTwister pings me ALL the time on his/her AfD noms and I recommend keep to probably 2/3 of them! This is no meatpuppetry here, but a great wikieditor trying to alert people he/she thinks could possibly have some input and additional resources to make sure the AfD outcome is as correct as possible. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The subject here basically appears to be an Internet celebrity and does not appear to have any entries at the Internet Adult Film Database or the Adult Film Database, which probably means that they have only "performed" in online pornography at best so far. I've also yet to see any evidence offered that the Feminist Porn Awards qualify as "a well-known and significant industry award". The subject here may have been involved in the feminist pornography movement, but those issues haven't been fleshed out in the article at this late date.

Pinging other users (that haven't yet been mentioned already) in AfDs should be highly discouraged in almost all cases. Guy1890 (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2015 (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.