Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel Rebel (2nd nomination)

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Rebel[edit]

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

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

Just another porn-related BLP without any independent reliable sourcing or any legitimate assertion of notability. Survived deletion in 2008 based on very low, now deprecated PORNBIO standards, and even though shw racked up more porn awards and nominations, she wouldn't have met the criteria in last year's version of that now-defunct guideline. No nontrivial independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With this many awards would assume notability within her science. Would strip the website reference secondary to WP:Promo and the weird wording of her native language. Cheerio042 (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Britishfinance (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography is a genre of entertainment, not a science. With up to 15 nominees per category, the porn award ceremonies nominate almost everybody for something. That's why they were stripped from WP:PORNBIO years ago. As the nominator states, the awards won would not have satisfied the now-deprecated PORNBIO guideline, failing the "well-known and significant industry award" test. Putting aside the less than significant award coverage, the remaining sources are the subject's website, a promotional listing and a press release. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:ENT and WP:BASIC without the support of non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. The article is a won-an-award-but-the-sources-are-junk porn bio loaded up with trivia. An independent search for reliable source coverage are brief mentions of the actress or brief quotes from her. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pornography creates awards as a method of PR driving, not to note actual accomplishment. As Gene93k points out our sources are a press release, a promotional listing and the subject's website. That in no way adds up to the level of reliable 3rd party secondary sources we expect for articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be known within the porn world, but even within that world it looks like there are no independent non-promotional sources writing about her - just the award notices. So, she seems to be known but not necessarily notable within the porn world. And it looks like she is largely unknown outside the walled garden of pornography. So, she might qualify for a porn wiki or encyclopedia (and I have no doubt these exist), but not for a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 8 July 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.