- Ryan Driller (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
A deletion discussion for this article took place in January 2014 and resulted in "delete". It was later WP:SALTED due to repeated recreation. Ryan Driller has now won the XBIZ Award for Male Performer of the Year, which should satisfy WP:PORNBIO#1 ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award"). The purpose of this DRV is not to contest the previous AfD, it's to request a new one. There is an equal amount of users on both sides of this debate: 3 users believe this passes WP:PORNBIO: me, Sammy1339 ([1]), & Guy1890 ([2]), and 3 users believe it doesn't meet any of WP's notability guidelines: SwisterTwister ([3]), Bearcat ([4]), & Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ([5]). BethNaught ([6]) and Spartaz ([7]) are both aware that there's a debate regarding Ryan Driller's notability. They both suggested this be brought to DRV, but have not given their opinion on Driller's notability yet, so I'd also like to see them weigh in on this debate. I have created a draft for the article. Please move it to article namespace and start a new AfD. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. The reason for create-protection no longer applies due to the change in circumstances, so a new AfD is warranted. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My problem is not with the notability claim that's been presented — it's with the sourcing that's been provided to support it. As I often explain in AFD discussions, no notability claim (not an award win, not an WP:ENT or WP:AUTHOR or WP:ATHLETE pass, not even being elected president of a person's country) is passed just by asserting that it's passed — a notability claim is passed only when you can reliably source that it's been passed. But the sourcing in the new draft about Driller is still parked entirely on primary sources, with no evidence of RS coverage having been shown. I've never once said that the claim itself was an invalid one — it would be enough to get a person into Wikipedia, if it were sourced properly. But it's not, and no claim of notability ever grants its topic an exemption from having to be reliably sourced. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just your opinion, not an actual policy of WP. In fact, there are many porn actors whose articles resulted in "keep" at AfD due to an award win mentioned in their article and sourced only to the website that awarded it. For example, Gianna Michaels and Kurt Lockwood. Recipients of the Female (Female Performer of the Year) and Foreign (Foreign Male Performer of the Year) counterparts of the award Ryan Driller won (Male Performer of the Year) have been kept at AfD as well. I would provide an AfD regarding this exact category if one existed, but it doesn't (see this list of all XBIZ Male Performer of the Year recipients. Not a single one of them has an AfD mentioned in their article's talk page). I assume it's probably because the prestige of this award is such common knowledge among users who browse/edit porn articles that none of them would even think about starting an AfD for a recipient of it. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not just "my opinion" — it is the rules of how Wikipedia's inclusion criteria work. Notability criteria are not passed just by asserting that they're passed, if the sourcing is primary or non-existent — the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the claim is what passes or fails the inclusion criterion. That is the way our inclusion and sourcing rules work; I'm not making anything up on my own. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I find this objection a bit strange, as Bearcat has made clear he does not have any doubt that the person won this award. The primary source seems reliable for this claim, per WP:PRIMARY. This is the sort of dispute that can be had at AfD. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The "reliablity" of a source is not solely a factor of the source's accuracy — that enters into the equation, obviously, but it's not the whole story in and of itself. To be considered a reliable source, the source also has to be independent of the claim: it cannot be the topic's own website. If "award win sourced to award's own website, with no third-party media coverage of the award win shown at all" were enough to get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, then we'd have to keep an article about every band that ever won a high school battle of the bands competition, every writer who ever won their own hometown newspaper's local poetry contest, everybody who ever won an outstanding volunteer award. That's why independent coverage in media is required: it's how we determine that the award in question is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it. What we have so far is assertions that XBIZ is the top-level award for porn — the media coverage has not been provided to show that that's actually true rather than just a self-invented claim of the type that lots of non-notable awards do make about themselves for PR purposes. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparing a porn award to high school battle of the bands competitions, a newspaper's local poetry contest, and an outstanding volunteer award is like comparing apples to oranges. Pornography is a form of media with a widespread audience and the people who appear in it are public figures. Supposed recipients of the examples you gave would not be public figures because of their small audiences, making it absurd to perceive them as notable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but here's the rub: do you know how the notability or non-notability of an award is determined, for Wikipedia's purposes? The existence or non-existence of reliable source coverage of that award in independent media. If the award is so uncovered that you have to depend on its own primary sourcing about itself to get its winners over a Wikipedia notability guideline, then by definition its winners have not gotten over the notability guideline — because coverage of the award in independent media is, with no "this subject area gets to make up its own special non-GNG-compliant rules for itself" exceptions for any reason, the one and only thing that can ever make an award notable enough to get its winners into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll repeat what I said previously on BethNaught's talk page: "primary sources are good enough to prove someone received an award. As a matter of fact, secondary sources can be untrustworthy. For example, Las Vegas Sun mistakenly reported that Kendall Karson "won multiple awards — 2013 AVN Best New Starlet, 2013 Exotic Dancer Awards Adult Movie Feature Entertainer of the Year, 2013 Sex Awards Porn Star of the Year, Sexiest Adult Star and Porn’s Best Body." The official websites for those awards do not list her as a recipient for any of those categories in that year ([8], [9], [10])." Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, secondary sources can be wrong. But primary sources can be wrong too — I can provide numerous examples of organizations which have made as yet uncorrected mistakes about themselves on their own websites. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. XBIZ's own Twitter account live-tweeted the winners during the ceremony, including Ryan Driller's Male Performer of the Year award, 2. xbiz.com published an article listing all XBIZ winners, which states Ryan Driller won Male Performer of the Year 3. xbizawards.xbiz.com states that Ryan Driller won Male Performer of the Year in 2016 in it's comprehensive listing of all winners throughout the ceremony's history, & 4. XBIZ profiled Ryan Driller in an article regarding his 2016 XBIZ Award wins, including Male Performer of the Year. It is inconceivable for XBIZ to be mistaken about Ryan Driller winning Male Performer of the Year at the 2016 XBIZ Awards. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, and I recall an extremely famous incident just a few weeks ago when the wrong winner got named live on stage by the host, and at least two less publicized incidents last year of somebody accidentally live-tweeting the wrong winner of an award. The issue is still that reliable source coverage of an award is the absolute be-all and end-all and no-way-around-it-all of how that award becomes notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it. Bearcat (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation. AFD is accepting the new pornbio guidelines re awards. ideally we would see better sourcing but we have to be realistic here. It would be perverse to expect better sourcing at DRV/AFC than AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. A technical pass of an SNG is not a guarantee that a subject merits an individual article. No argument has been made that the subject passes the GNG, The independent coverage in the article, apart from routine industry PR, is flimsy and trivial. There's no independent, reliable sourcing presented that the claimed award meets the PORNBIO standard of being "well-known and significant". There's certainly a solid argument that the awards are well-known enough to be notable, but that's not enough to satisfy PORNBIO. XBIZ is a PR business, and its award nominees are not independently chosen, but "are submitted by clients".[11][12] I've never seen an independent reliable source attesting to the actual significance of the XBIZ awards. Instead, as pointed out in discussions like the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XBIZ Award and the HuffPost article I cite there, these awards are viewed as fundamentally unimportant. As the Huffington Post journalist reported after the 2013 award ceremony, "the majority of the performers and directors at the event" agreed that the awards were "a total joke".[13]. The article on the XBIZ Awards themselves is almost entirely sourced to XBIZ itself; it's a strong signal that an award is not significant when the outcome is reported mainly by the awardgiver itself. Two AFC reviewers have independently reached the conclusion that this poorly sourced BLP doesn't meet our notability standards, and the draft's proponents aven't provided any reliably sourced evidence that the awards involved meet the significance test under PORNBIO/ANYBIO. Are there any other fields where awards given like an organization like XBIZ are considered significant enough to demonstrate notability? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As a regular participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, I'm not familiar with Bearcat. He doesn't seem to be a regular participant at porn AfD's, so I can attribute his opposition to recreating this article to a lack of knowledge on porn awards. The same cannot be said about you, HW. Your argument is completely disingenuous. As a regular porn AfD participant, you must be aware of this award's prestige. Considering the fact that you not only vote in porn AfD's, but also start many of them yourself, I assume you regularly browse Category:Pornographic film actors subcategories for articles to delete. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have started an AfD for Ryan Driller upon encountering the article if it's first creation were after the XBIZ Male Performer of the Year award win. This seems like nothing but a leap of faith you're making in an attempt to degrade the value of even more porn awards from WP's notability perspective. Everyone familiar with porn awards should know that Male and Female Performer of the Year are by far the most prestigious awards in all porn award ceremonies. I'm still incredulous at the fact that you actually voted to delete a recipient of AVN's Best New Starlet award, the industry's second most prestigious award for female porn stars right after Female Performer of the Year. Last year, you responded to the Redban (a now blocked disruptive editor who went on an AfD/notability tagging spree of porn biographies to protest the deletion of his favorite porn star's article, for those of you not familiar with him) situation with an analysis of who you believed was and wasn't notable among those he tagged, and even that didn't make any sense. In your opinion, Venus Actress Award recipient Jodie Moore was notable, XRCO Orgasmic Analist recipient Jada Stevens's notability was "arguable", yet, you somehow concluded that Katja Kassin, a recipient of both a Venus Actress Award and XRCO's Orgasmic Analist, was definitely not notable. It seems like I'm rambling here, but my point is basically that you lack the credibility to determine what is and isn't a well-known/significant award under WP:PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Another fact-free, aspersion-laced post from Rebecca1990, who regularly attempts to avoid policy-based and guideline-based matters in favor of disparaging comments about editors who disagree with them. Claiming that I "lack credibility" has exactly nothing to do with a dispute over whether the XBIZ awards' lack of coverage outside their sponsor's own PR weighs on their significance. And if we look at the actual numbers, my accuracy rate in current AFD discussions is 85%,[14], and roughly 90% of my AFD nominations result in deletion.[15] Your accuracy rate, in contrast, is under 30%.[16] That's just awful. It's pretty clear whose opinions/evaluations in this area are closely aligned with consensus. And your guilt-by-association tirade about Redban (in which, btw, you've once again misrepresented my statements) lead to an interesting comparison. 28 of the 88 articles tagged by Redban as dubiously notable have been deleted. That would put his accuracy rate at no worse than 31.8%. (It could be higher, given that many of the articles haven't yet gone through AFD). That's higher than yours. If Redban was properly topic-banned for his indiscriminate pro-deletion tagging, your anti-deletion !voting is even more indiscriminate. Why shouldn't you be topic-banned, if your arguments against Redban's tagging were valid? (And as for guilt-by-association, you edited much more in tandem with the now permabanned harasser Scalhotrod than my handful of posts regarding Redban. Just saying. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not my responsibility to have any specialized knowledge about the notability or non-notability of porn awards. It's the article's responsibity to make notability plainly apparent to any reader, regardless of that reader's level of preexisting knowledge about the subject — and reliable source coverage in real media is how that occurs. And incidentally, I'm not nearly as unknowledgable about porn as you seem to think I am, either. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We're still missing articles on Leibniz prizewinning scientists, but we're spending volunteer time on a porn performer who calls himself "Ryan Driller", who's won an industry-sponsored award involving parody porn scenes. Brilliant. If I could think of any legitimate way to veto this rubbish then I would. Since I can't, I very reluctantly suppose we've got to allow it. It would be lovely if you lot could write something more worthwhile, you know.—S Marshall T/C 23:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- restore/relist SNG now met, so worth a discussion. Given the lack of love for porn here, I strongly suggest you find some RSes that at least covered the award. (FYI, I think we should treat porn performers as we would any other performer, but expecting at least _some_ independent RS coverage is reasonable). Hobit (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore and relist. There's a good faith claim to additional notability here, and this is not the place to argue it. (Nor am I qualified to do so) If the award is generally regarded as implying notability , then the award's web site is a reliable source for it, as for any other uncontested fact. (But if the award really is important, it should be possible to find another source also). DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist at AFD to see what they make of all this. I don't care how this is achieved. Thincat (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist, per DGG's observation. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsalt, move the draft to mainspace, and allow immediate listing at AfD. The AfD and salting were long enough ago, and there is an additional claim of notability, so re-testing at AfD is reasonable. Personally, I don't see any secondary source material, and would probably !vote to delete. I have no respect for the PORNBIO SNG, it passes many subjects that will never have independent secondary sourcing, including some that are seriously BLP violating. Possibly, these pornstars, like supercentenarians, would generally be well covered in a list or table. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
