Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Texas (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 keep. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Texas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

This was kept 12 years for minor awards that most definitely do not cut the mustard now. Seems an epic GNG and ENT fail and as a BLP needs better sourcing. My first 5 pages of search had nothing worthwhile and there was nothing on the news tab either. Her breakout mainstream film role (singular) does not justify a page of its own. Spartaz Humbug! 16:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:PORNBIO. Sourcing is porn industry publications, and the awards are not notable. Wm335td (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The case of notable porn star without reliable sources strikes back. The problem here is that Hannah Montana was almost called Alexis Texas, so that’s pretty much the only safe for work stuff you will find with that name. I do believe that industry specific sources like AVN should be allowed to keep though. Trillfendi (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • comment if this page can't pass ENT, then no pornstar can pass ENT, and all of them would have to pass GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of meeting any criterion of WP:ENT need the support of much better quality sources. The article has a large number of citations, but nearly all of them fall under the interview, press release, appearance credit or porn award roster categories. Do independent reliable sources acknowledge significant roles in multiple notable productions, a significant fan base or a cult following? Porn awards don't cut it without independent RS acknowledgement. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gene93k, Usernamekiran, and Trillfendi: This has been done below. Given the prominence of this figure, there is probably even more out there. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - At the least, WP:ENT #2 & #3 apply. Without time to dig super deep on sources ("Texas" makes the task more difficult), her inclusion in Confessions of the Hundred Hottest Porn Stars: ... Tell-Alls from the Biggest Names in the Biz serves as an accurate characterization. She has been one of the most well-known figures in the field for about a decade. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, she is the sole subject of what is basically a biography, The Alexis Texas Handbook - Everything You Need to Know about Alexis Texas, published by Heinemann. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see the suitability of this source has been challenged below. Irregardless, this figure was still the third most followed pornographic actor at one time (or close to; assuming that trend followed across other social media platforms) as explicitly pointed out and reliably cited by Morbidthoughts below. That alone meets criteria criterion #2 of WP:ENT. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Godsy. Coverage goes beyond her name's "connection" to Hannah Montana. Article is good enough to pass WP:ENT. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep focus of sole biography by notable publisher, per Godsy. Not to mention "Alexis Texas porn" getting 1,830 hits on google books [1], not to mention being cited in one book length study of "female genital cosmetic surgery" as "one of the most successful porn stars of the decade" [2]. The many mentions in books seems to throw if a BEFORE search was properly done into question. I would love WM335td to specifically prove how these books are "porn industry publications". GuzzyG (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a add on since the books were ignored by the bottom below vote, i know this means nothing on it's own, but as a cherry on top from the books; here's her page views from every wiki language [3], 17 mil total - 5.4mil in Farsi, 1mil in Spanish, 1mil in Turkish and nearly a mil in Arabic. Which proves atleast being known internationally. To compare a more local but obviously important figure, Joseph Smith, [4] he gets 7mil - with no million views in a language other than English. While fame isn't important, when you mix biographies from reputable publishers, book mentions and 10 mil more pageviews than established figures with clear notability and including international views, i think that paints a overall more clearer picture of notability. GuzzyG (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The likely problem here is, given the commonplace disagreements over pornographic figures regarding awards and whatnot, that some cannot distinguish extremely notable cases (as in this case). Moreover, some likely cannot get past the social taboo of the subject or simply morally stigmatize it (and are thereby unconversant). Alexis Texas is almost certainly in the top 100 (if not 50 or less) most prominent figures in the field of all time. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i've witnessed the pro-longed years long beat down of the criteria for porn stars, yet none for the "one game pro sports stars" biographies which points to it being a moral thing. The killer is industry specific sources are labled as "non bias" and "promotional" but a one film actor can have a source in Variety (magazine) and it's ok. But Alexis and Mandingo (who was deleted) being non notable is obviously way off base. Alexis has gotten 5.4 million views in the Farsi wikipedia. If that does not show for some sort of notability than half of wiki would not qualify, it's just hardly any other field gets their primary/industry specific sources banned. Ion Cuțelaba would fit these same arguments, "would never get developed more than a stub" etc and is completely sourced to mma specific sites, but they're not banned. Apply that to every field. It's got to the point where the people who win the main award in porn are considered "not notable" and some don't have articles, some are even in pop culture like Lana Rhoades and don't have one or even where this was a relisted discussion despite her being cited as "one of the most successful porn stars of the decade" in a book [5] published by a reliable publisher of academic journals and books Springer Publishing and not by a complete irrelevant random person [6], not to mention the biography you found with another publisher who has a wiki, yet this was doubted in a way and relisted for discussion. Pageviews don't mean nothing on their own, but here's Megan Thee Stallion, a popstar currently all over the mainstream media and yet has only 6.2 mil[7], compared with Alexis 17.4mil - which shows it's not just some completely normal thing to have that many views. There's a massive stigma on here, but there's nothing you can do when only porn has it's industry sources seen as unreliable. It's a ridiculous standard and not surprising for a field dominated by women, it just sucks that gay/trans porn performers are even worse off, because they don't get the attention sometimes hetero performers do and rely purely on industry sources and as such have it worse on here. GuzzyG (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that the fact she was reliably sourced to a gender studies scholar as "one of the most successful porn stars of the decade" which was conveniently skipped over and not addressed. How do we judge notability if a actual scholar of a related field mentions someone as the top performer?" We can't expect front page NYT coverage of a porn star because it would likely lead to outrage considering the US's social conservatism - which is why she only gets featured in Canadian newspapers [8], so what else do we have if not gender studies scholars? Here's the average television actress - Andrea Elson, routine coverage due to one main role on the ALF show, sources to a routine award and nothing but routine coverage of the show. Article not likely to grow beyond a stub or start and nothing like a indepth bio is likely. Also likely never had the same level of following. This is how the average actor is covered. We just hold porn stars to a unrealistic standard that is not held site wide. Andrea Elson is not in no academic study either. GuzzyG (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion on the sources found. In particular, it would help to improve the article, citing them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ENT from the surprising Google Scholar search results:
  • "As of this writing, the most popular porn performers via their Instagram follower base were: Sunny Leone: 13.3 million followers, Mia Khalifa: 8.1 million followers, and Alexis Texas: 3.8 million followers."[9] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After all, one of the most successful porn stars of the last decade, Alexis Texas, is well known for her ample buttocks" [10] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Godsy's reserach and work StarM 20:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The most substantive source here has been challenged, throwing the !votes based on it into doubt; relisting to allow discussion of the other criteria that have been brought up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my !Vote hasn't changed, and would be curious if HW has something besides the caps lock to back up his assertion. Regardless, believe there's enough to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs) 00:01, October 14, 2020‎ (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:ENT. Mostly sourced to...industry publications. KidAd talk 01:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering the academic sources to "most popular" are continuously ignored, let me do a post on the record dissecting WP:ENT, going indepth and how "industry publications" is only used to dismiss porn and no other field (because they still have their SNGs). It's worth noting that pornography is directly responsible for Wikipedia and it's original funding Bomis [11][12]. Which is odd because its the one field held to above standards and that the porn stars whose images are responsible for wiki would probably not qualify on here, which is ironic.
Let's see how ENT relates to Alexa
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions
(Well Alexis Texas is Buttwoman was industry defining and than there's Aroused (film) which is direct documentary coverage of the subjects life and covered indepth in the Canadian newspaper i linked above. The fact that the first film was deleted by the same types who have deleted porn articles for years means nothing. Ice Cream Man (film) is a normal type of film with no indepth sources, but it's not held to the same example as a porn film. Bandz a Make Her Dance was big. Making a porn performer qualify by a rule meant for "television shows and stage performances" seems unnecessary)
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following
If 17 million wikipedia pages views with 5 million in Farsi [13] do not cross this barrier then alot of the mainstream celebrities wouldn't qualify. as i shown with Megan Thee Stallion not even being close to that [14], despite having a number one song currently.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
(Let's not kid ourselves (by using tv actors) that every other kind of actor listed on wiki has made these same level of transformative contributions, as a rule this is super fluff and meaningless really. Benji Gregory, Andrea Elson, Terri Treas, M. C. Gainey and i can list THOUSANDs more actors that just have routine coverage related to the tv character role they played - they're not transformative, unique - just prolific. But so is Alexis at over 800 roles [15]. Why are TV actors not held to this same example?


Lets look at other fields, since tv actors could be listed for days.
Sports; Ion Cuțelaba - a MMA article only sourced to sites like "mmajunkie" "bloodyelbow" "mmafighting" "Mmanews". if this was a porn article it'd be "industry publications". Could KidAd explain how it's different? The MMA SNG makes him qualify, but why exactly is it different?
Politics; Alondra Cano extremely routine position and seat - are we supposed to list every city council member, why is the routine coverage here any different?
Music; Arcane Device There's absolutely no sources here.
Music; Mark Dinning here's a musician that's charted number one, but Billboard (magazine) is a INDUSTRY PUBLICATION. So dismissing Billboard (We don't), what else is there? Two articles relating to him passing away? That wouldn't help a porn performer, would it? Where is the indepth sources for this article? It qualifies by the SNG, but why is the treatment different?
Sports; Every single sports player who has only played one professional match and yet has a wiki.
It's clearly obvious that porn articles are held to different standards and that under the inquisition porn articles get that 50% of articles on here relating to arts/entertainment would be removed. The porn SNG should never have been removed and it's a massive disservice to Wikipedia if 5 million people who have viewed this article on english wikipedia are going to be inconvenienced by it's removal. Especially when academic sources acknowledge Texas as one of the most popular of her field. How is "industry publications" a legitmate argument when Billboard (magazine) and Rolling Stone are music industry publications at their core and are the only reason we have articles for thousands of musicians and same with Variety (magazine) and film. Why is the treatment different? This is a massive time sink and it'll be a massive hassle when someone does a biographical dictionary of pornography and they all have to be added back. Or worse, have to be rewritten months after their deletion because they died like August Ames, which acknowledged that mainstream sources DO Acknowledge porn. If the goal is to stop the tabloidness of the encyclopedia, it seems funny that the only way articles on porn stars are for certain kept is if they get death coverage like Ames, gossip stuff like Stormy Daniels or multiple reality tv appearances like Jenna Jameson, all tabloid reasons. So in keeping out porn articles for their success in the field, it only reinforces even more the tabloid nature because then they only qualify by tabloid means. Funny. GuzzyG (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Heiko Gerber (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Right cite (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many of the sources mentioned above (excluding The Alexis Texas Handbook), including coverage across a diverse range of types of media and years. — Bilorv (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Texas. Notability was established and has not been lost. Indeed, User:Right cite has shown that her notability has only increased. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There appears to be sufficient evidence of notability. (Note: I came here from the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard.) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because PORNBIO was deprecated doesn't mean that Texas doesn't fall under WP:ANYBIO. Sure, I get that most porn awards are practically meaningless because there's so many much like the endless amount of "Game of the Year" awards given by niche entities and winning multiple times for Most Epic Ass doesn't make Texas notable. But she's been nominated four times for the AVN "Female Performer of the Year" and she's been covered in numerous other sources that have been recently added to the article. Plus I object to this idea that pornographic industry publications are "not enough" to establish notability. This has no basis in policy or fact beyond some sort of WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument that pornographic trade publications differ from music industry, game industry, movie industry, or practically any other industry publication in some way. Pornographic performers are like other performers and we should treat them the same way; not better (like PORNBIO entails) or worse (like this discussion is suggesting). Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in its current includes news items, book publications, and award nominations. More than enough to establish notability for an actress. Dimadick (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:ENT criterion 2. This is shown by the evidence presented by Morbidthoughts and GuzzyG. More generally, it seems there is a systemic bias against porn actors (also visible in this recent AfD). We keep deeming subjects notable because of SNG that would otherwise struggle to have even a claim of significance. I'm thinking here, for example, of football players who have come on as a sub in a single pro match with no evidence other than the match statistics (WP:NFOOTBALL). I know this line of argument tends towards WP:OTHERSTUFF but for the sake of improving the project I think the article should be kept. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per HEY (directed @ Right cite) with sources that demonstrate notability to satisfy BLP criteria. Otr500 (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Wikipedia is not censored. Other stuff is reportedly not a good argument at AFD yet is offered almost daily. Repeatedly rehashing that "Wikipedia" is biased towards porn (or "systemic bias against porn actors" - with a non-convincing link) is an indirect form of casting aspersions that in these individual discussions gives the appearance that "if" someone does not agree they are guilty by association.
I do not have an issue with the listing of accomplishments that are part of a bio, but scene awards do not advance notability when the source is not deemed independent. I did not even know there were so may ways to present an ass award, Best Ass (Fan's Choice), Hottest Ass (Fan Award), Best Butt (Fan Choice), Most Epic Ass (Fan Award) or the comparable Favorite Bottom, Hottest Bottom. I am against all trade industry type only notability criteria so not specifically biased to one in particular.
My stating here (my "plug" in this discussion) that the inundation of "almost all porn articles" with the same external links, 1)- IMDb, 2)- Internet Adult Film Database, 3)- Adult Film Database, regardless if they offer anything according to the guidelines (WP:ELBLP, WP:ELMIN) or WP:NOT, as a way to add corporate "communication strategies" or site promotion, has no bearing on the notability of this article. We should really take these discussions where they belong, like the talk page, relevant policy page, that particular editor the comments might be referring to, or the next new essay someone is itching to write.
It should be noted that Armond Rizzo (the example of bias listed above) does not even have an external link section. The "add these links to every related article" fan club must have missed it. Otr500 (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2020 (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/Alexis_Texas_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=985571781"