Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alektra Blue (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. There appears to be no agreement on whether her awards can be considered "well-known and significant." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alektra Blue[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alektra Blue (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 coverage in reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO due to lack of significant awards; awards are fan-based or scene/group-related. Sources include online profiles, interviews and trivial mentions in tabloid-like publications -- these are insufficient to establish notability via GNG. Appearance in the mainstream outlets are trivial.

AfD in 2007 closed as "keep" based on the awards but the consensus around adult biographies has evolved significantly since then, along with PORNBIO, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. WP:PORNBIO, especially term of "a well-known and significant industry award" are debatable, nominator - K.e.coffman and his "deletionism pornography gang" based on subjective interpretation of PORNBIO and trying to convince others that XBIZ Award, F.A.M.E. Award are not well-known and significant industry award and even most of the prizes of pornographic Oscars - AVN Awards are not well-known and significant industry award! No, this is not a joke. Very destructive and controversial behavior. As for the second case: it does not matter whether a chosen people or "professors" (jury), there are many world-class awards in many industries where the winner chosen people. This is another attempt overstatement requirements by "deletionism pornography gang" with K.e.coffman and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 15:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's accurate analysis. The supposed "significance" of these short-lived awards is based only on an unatrributed quote sourced to the award's own promotional website, which should be given absolutely no weight. It certainly comes nowhere near outweighing the absence of substantial reliable secondary source coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Guy1890 has done a satisfactory job and the article now conforms to Wiki standards. Holanthony (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The F.A.M.E. Award may provide a narrow technical pass of WP:PORNBIO, but the sources in the article come nowhere near WP:GNG's requirements. Only one citation (a fairly routine XBIZ article) remotely qualifies as reliable, independent and non-trivial. The rest are republished press releases or unreliable sites like XRentDVD. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets of PORNBIO + some other smaller achievements + fame (well known, 34 interwiki speaks for itself). Generally, 101% notable. For me, this AfD is trolling by user:K.e.coffman, he inserts to AFD more and more notable pornstars. I suggest a little break in the topic of pornography for K.e.coffman because he lacks neutrality. WP:PORNBIO is not the only argument that you need to consider, also in this case, status of F.A.M.E. Award – Favorite Female (in WP:PORNBIO) is still disputed, where is neutrality? Voices to removed continuously from the same users, i.e. user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz or user:Johnpacklambert (with still the same silly-empty text of "non-notable pornographic performer") are boring and destructive. I understand, to do the cleanup in pornography category (delete pornstars without any achievements), but this is an exaggeration. Compact group which constantly vote for removed, still the same users responsible for the mass removed pornography articles (blindly based on WP:PORNBIO like robot), often they are trying to misuse the official consensus of WP:PORNBIO (for example: AVN Award is the most exclusive award in the industry but for these few users, not all awards of AVN Award are important). More and more we are approaching the final: topic ban for these few users, who massively intercede pornography articles for AFD and massively voting for delete. This "gang" of these few users have the clout that every AfD is their winnings, what see on each votes (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion#Closed). I and few other (inclusionist) users like @Rebecca1990: or @Erpert:, we gave up - a constant battle with the same gang. Time to end it. PS. I apologize for my voice during the Christmas season - then again, I forgot... Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 12:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more time: Interwiki links have no bearing on notability. Wikis in other languages have their own notability guidelines and some include articles because they exist in en.Wikipedia. AfD is not a battleground and this is not about winning or losing. I've kept away from voting in these borderline PORNBIOs with low-quality sourcing debates, but your call for a topic ban is ridiculous. Editors like HW take a hard line about reliable sources. The best response is to provide quality sources that cover the subject in a non-trivial manner, not to call the editors deletionists. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that the amount of interwiki is not a sufficient argument to keep and I know that "Wikis in other languages have their own notability guidelines" but if article existed on 35 Wikis, and gang of (still the same) few users on English Wikipedia want to remove article based on disputed interpretation of WP:PORNBIO, something is wrong. Alektra Blue is well known pornstar and have 406 films, 11 years in industry, she was the Penthouse Pet of the Month, she has also been featured in several men's magazines, including world-known Hustler (I know, none of them individually are not arguments for keep, but to analyze a person can be taken into account). She won several awards including (individual as requires WP:PORNBIO) notable F.A.M.E. Award and the so-called pornographic Oscars - AVN Awards, the most renowned prize in the pornographic industry. Otherwise, Blue appeared in the music video for the 2010 single "Telephone" by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé (+ independent - non pornagraphic sources, meets of WP:GNG). Alektra Blue meets the basic guidelines of WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG and has additional achievements, even Wikipedia:Common sense speaks for leave. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 14:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no legitimate "dispute" over the application or interpretation of PORNBIO, at least in the direction Subtropical-man claims. The most recent RFC on PORNBIO "demonstrated overwhelming consensus" for making the guideline more restrictive. If there was any substantial dispute, it was over whether the guideline was not restrictive enough. Repeated deletion discussions and DRVs have also demonstrated strong consensus for the point that, as with every other SNG, failure to satisfy GNG/BLP sourcing requirements generally outweighs a technical SNG pass. Subtropical-man's argument that editors who consistently make policy/guideline-based arguments and achieve consensus for their positions are illegitimate demonstrates, at best, a mind-boggling lack of WP:COMPETENCE and, giben the level of repeated, groundless personal attacks ought to justify a topic ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you talking about? There is no official consensus (on page reserved for this purpose, for example Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)) about awards: XBIZ Award and F.A.M.E. Award (that these not meet of WP:PORNBIO) and also there is not official consensus for AVN Awards (that most of its prizes does not meet of WP:PORNBIO).
  • WP:PORNBIO say: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award", for some users (including you and your gang), XBIZ Award and F.A.M.E. Award not meet of PORNBIO, for some users these awards meets of PORNBIO. WP:PORNBIO does not specify exactly what prizes accepted, whether something meets the requirements or not, it is debatable case and based on subjective interpretation and own opinion. Until an official discussion and consensus on page reserved for this purpose, to new version of WP: PORNBIO who precisely show accepted awards, there will always be conflicts. PS. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, if you think that you create quiet consensus concerning WP:PORNBIO between users of your gang on AfD pages (or other pages this type), you're wrong and you show "mind-boggling lack of WP:COMPETENCE". Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 21:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Subtropical-man, you make perfect sense and your argument bears much merit, make no mistake. Wolfowitz's opinions lack substance as well as credibility as he makes it a constant point to eagerly resort to personal attacks and then whine about how everyone and their grandmother is conspiring against him (just read his signature, that should give you a flavor of what he's about). He is a BLP zealot who even goes as far as trying to invoke it on people who are long dead ("WP:BLP does not authorize scandalmongering about the dead"). [1] I am confident however, that the majority of users see through this charade of his and see this issue for what it i really worth and vote for "keep". @Gene93k, I disagree, I don't think Subtropical-man's call for a topic ban for HW is "ridiculous". As a matter of fact, I think it is highly warranted in his case as he only engages in disruptive, nonconstructive edits aimed at removing content rather than making it better or more constructive, often on completely erroneous grounds.Holanthony (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holanthony, you and Subtropical-man conspicuously avoid arguments that are actually grounded in policy and guideline, preferring abusive comments about other users. You don't participate much in AFD discussions, and your !vote has never yet matched consensus. Subtropical-man's rate is as bad as I;ve ever seen for an experienced user, 16.6%.[2] In contrast, my "accuracy rate" is over 80& [3], while Gene93k, whose arguments you also decry, has an even higher consensus-match over 87%. Pretending that the relevant consensus doesn't exist is disruptive at best, and likely deceptive. Attacking editors for making consensus-based arguments is grounds for a topic ban; establishing or supporting consensus is not. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), your percentages are nonsense and manipulation. Most of my votes in the AfD over the few years are in the field of pornography and... you with your "gang" with still the same few users have the clout that every AfD is their winnings, this gang vote in each AfD about pornography (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion#Closed). If there would be this "gang", my "percent" is about 90. These numbers do not show anything. You wrote also: "Pretending that the relevant consensus doesn't exist is disruptive at best, and likely deceptive" - there is no official consensus about AVN Award, F.A.M.E. Award, XBIZ Award or other, there are no official guidelines for AVN Award, F.A.M.E. Award, XBIZ Award or other in WP:PORNBIO. Official text from WP:PORNBIO: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration". For part of users, these awards are not meet PORNBIO, for part of users are meet of PORNBIO. For last months, I act according to the WP:PORNBIO (official consensus) but you not. You are constantly trying to increase the requirements, you falsify consensus telling other users that AVN Award (not all prizes) and F.A.M.E. Award, XBIZ Award and each other awards are not meet of PORNBIO, based on its opinion. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 20:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're spouting ridiculous stuff again. The "nonsense and manipulation" you claim exists (without evidence) are actually generated by the standard tool used for RFA evaluation. Yes, your percentage would go up if only people who disagree with you didn't vote. Big deal. Making arguments that you disagree with and getting consensus support for them is hardly improper. It is exactly what's called for by WP:CONSENSUS. Your failure to accept this shows a failure to understand basic Wikipedia principles and reflects poorly on your WP:COMPETENCE. Now stop attacking other editors and ranting tendentiously. If not, it's likely to lead to a topic ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the recent set of edits have not substantially improved the article: diff. In fact, it added more trivia cited to the XRent web site & interviews:
  • She credits fellow actress Taryn Thomas with her introduction to the adult industry, as they used to work at a call center when they both lived in Arizona.[1]

References

  1. ^ Alektra Blue (13 November 2007). "Inside Alektra Blue" (Interview). Interviewed by Big D. XRentDVD. Retrieved 23 December 2016.
Sources are still very unconvincing for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the nomination, the objection was, "lacks coverage...that discuss the subject directly and in detail."  Now the complaint is "added...trivia".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The extra trivia was added after the nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, we got that.  Other people would identify that as "detail", or responding to the problem identified in the nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was that a royal "we"? :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep  Pornbio topics are typically massively notable directly, by the understanding of notability provided by the WP:N nutshell.  This one seems to go well above any sense of "typically".

    At the last AfD, closed as Keep, the actress only had 97 movies listed, now the number is 406.  Nominator omitted WP:BEFORE B6, which reveals 24 interlanguage links, "which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles".  The next year after the last AfD closed as keep, the model received recognition as Penthouse Pet of the Month, a recognition I consider just by itself to be sufficient for at least a mini-bio on a page of related bios on Wikipedia. 

    Pornbio topics needs to satisfy WP:V, and there are 17 inline citations, with 5 "dead links", which are acceptable as verifiable sources, and one citation needed tag.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The WP:PORNBIO guideline has been tightened substantially since the article was kept in 2007. Being a Penthouse Pet or Playboy Playmate is no longer an automatic pass. Prolificness and number of films was removed from PORNBIO later in 2007. Nominations no longer count and neither do scene-related awards. As for citations, quality (reliability) counts more than quantity. The sources that aren't junk are trivial mentions. The dead links at sites like AVN can be found by searching the site. They turn out to be republished press releases. As for inter-language links, Wikipedia in any language is not an acceptable source for supporting Wikipedia content, and many are just translations of the article in English Wikipedia (circular sources). As for giving the article more time, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of non-trivial reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice that the above post has mentioned more than one "that used to be an automatic pass" criteria that are applicable for this topic.  Just because they are no longer an "automatic pass" doesn't mean that they don't still carry weight.  And when the benchmark used to be 100 films, and this topic has 400, the weight is considerable.

    Republished press releases are secondary sources that carry the reliability of the publisher, and reliability also depends on context. 

    An issue remains that WP:BEFORE B6 was ignored in the nomination, and at this point, we don't know how much the discussion has been confounded by opinions developed before knowing the basic facts. 

    If there is a problem in the sourcing of the article, this would be important and independent of notability, but based on the sources and tags in the article, in fact there appears to be consensus that the article satisfies WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding WP:BEFORE, have you actually looked at the interwiki links? They use the same English-language citations that the en.Wikipedia article does. Some are even less well cited. Citing a failure to cross this T regarding an American porn star is legalism that defies common sense. Wikipedia is not a court of law. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the feedback loop here?  From engineering theory, the concept of a "system" requires feedback.  Are you a supporter of quality AfD nominations?  Wikipedia may not be a court of law, but it is also not a back street alley.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re notability criteria: Before my time here, porn stars were kept for having an IMDb profile. As several Wikipedia guidelines and policies state, "Consensus may change." In the the case of PORNBIO, it has changed substantially over the past 10 years. There was a long drawn-out debate about what criteria about a porn performer predict likely notability, and that is the current WP:PORNBIO guideline. Nominations no longer count. Scene-related awards no longer count. X number of films was expressly removed in 2007, since film counts are easily inflated. We use the notability metrics agreed by consensus to determine whether or not an article is kept. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Press releases: Per WP:V, press releases are self-published material. (See note #9 referenced by WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources.) They are not intellectually independent of the agency promoting the good or service being reported. WikiProject Pornography notes that Adult Video News does not indicated whether an article is original reporting or a press release, but a common indicator is contact information. (To book this performer contact.../For more information visit...). WP:V says to treat such sources with caution and not to use them to support claims about living people. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as (happening to look in) I'll state the applicable porn actors notability says "Scene nominations aren't notable" and that's what we have here, so citing WP:PORNSTAR is not the same thing if it's not actually stating what's otherwise suggested, hence there's no other significant awards and no actual notability, as the nomination states. GNG is especially not applicable since it's a gamble given how thin and unconvincing it can be used for nearly anything, so WP:PORNSTAR is what applies here alone. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Unscintillating regarding WP:GNG not being a content guideline. Content is not the main issue we are discussing. Notability is the normal standard we use to determine whether to keep or toss an article. The relevant notability guidelines in this case are the General Notability Guideline (GNG) and PORNBIO if GNG is not met. • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast with this assertion, the relevant notability guideline is WP:Notability.  The following quotes are from the top of the guideline. 

    WP:Notability "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." 

    The nutshell states, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."  Unscintillating (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I replied to you in another AfD debate, GNG is the main body of WP:N. The section you quoted stresses WP:RS which is the main problem with this article. Ignore all rules rules requires compelling evidence. As I stated above, I am not !voting in this AfD, but the recent trend is to IAR/use common sense and delete these won-an-award-but-is-crappily-sourced PORNBIOs despite looser interpretations of WP:PORNBIO that used to prevail. Then again, PORNBIO is the most permissive standard in Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG is one of our ways we reach understanding of WP:N.  WP:N can be determined without WP:GNG or any of the SNGs.  [redacted] Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are pointing to a talk space essay/guideline fork that you wrote to expand on an assertion you made in an AfD discussion. Your complaint was that notability assessments are too GNG-centric. That AfD discussion closed as no consensus. A more productive path would be to bring the issue up at Wikipedia talk:Notability or the village pump. In this case, you propose satisfying it by ignoring all its related parts, another way of expressing "ignore all rules." Following WP:N without WP:GNG, we go to the relevant specialized guideline to the right, Wikipedia:Notability (people)/WP:BIO. The primary criteria (WP:BASIC) restate GNG in summary. Failing that without in-depth coverage by reliable sources, we go to secondary inclusion criteria, WP:PORNBIO in this case. Here lies our dispute: Are the awards won "well-known" enough to satisfy the PORNBIO guideline and do they overcome the lack of reliable source coverage? Again, IAR needs a compelling reason. What do you have? • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry that you don't seem to like my link.  I've redacted the link because you don't show that you've understood it, so it is not helpful.  The other two sentences of the post remain. 

    Other text above that stands is the statement that reads, "WP:Notability is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow...".  WP:N is where notability is defined on Wikipedia; not at WP:GNG, not at WP:BIO, not at WP:BASIC, not at WP:PORNBIO, and not at WP:IAR.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gene93k, you wrote: "The relevant notability guidelines in this case are the General Notability Guideline (GNG) and PORNBIO if GNG is not met" - yes, but in Alektra Blue case, PORNBIO are official met: two non-scene awards. The problem is only "deletionism pornography gang" based on subjective interpretation of PORNBIO and trying to convince others that XBIZ Award, F.A.M.E. Award are not well-known and significant industry award and even most of the prizes of pornographic Oscars - AVN Awards are not well-known and significant industry award! Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 20:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not found , they so called nomination awards,,, is sources from a proomotional website , i cant find enough independent Reliable sources Samat lib (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course... but very interesting that - from the beginning - your account is only for AfD (except for a few editions): [4]... and also you were blocked for being / use of sock-puppet. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Subtropical-man ... You know i have made a lot of contribution in good faith , honestly if it meet Wikipedia criteria , personally i will defend the article ... Samat lib (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Samat lib: [5] shows lifetime AfD history of 45 delete !votes and one merge !vote.

Two recent !votes were, "this article lack independent reliable sources" and "No evidence of notability , the article lack independent Reliable sources".  From these two !votes, it appears that you don't understand the difference between notability and article sourcing. 

Your !vote here is unclear.  What do you mean "notability not found"?  Where did you look?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- as an alleged member of the Deletionist Gang(TM), I'd like to add that some may view this nomination as "evidence-based editing" & "adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". I'm going to add this to my Hard-line Anti-Nazi(TM) label. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2017 (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/Alektra_Blue_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1177840033"