Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandy Talore (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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Talore[edit]

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

minor shared award does not pass GNG or PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO with FAME Award for Favorite Female Rookie. The award is not scene-related and being tied with another performer does not make this award an ensemble category. Ensemble, by definition, means "a group of musicians, actors, or dancers who perform together." Talore and Alektra Blue have never even done a single scene together. This is also a newcomer award, which have overwhelming consensus favoring their inclusion in PORNBIO. Also, the ONLY FAME Awards removed from PORNBIO were nominations (as were ALL other nominations for EVERY porn award). Wins were never removed from PORNBIO and Talore was not only nominated for this award, she won it. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - winner, meets of PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As nice as she is unfortunately article's don't get kept based on looks! - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article, as it stands, falls far short of meeting GNG/BLP requirements: Little of the sourcing is reliable, and virtually none is independent. The issue is then whether the subject's FAME Award is sufficient to outweigh this shortfall. IU don't believe the award is well-known and significant, as required by PORNBIO. I've seen no evidence that is regarded as significant, either inside the industry or in outside commentary. Instead, it was a short-term and ultimately unsuccessful contrivance, a corporate marketing-generated example of astroturfing masquerading as a fan enterprise. It never really gained any traction, and it's significant that sources used in the award article are uniformly associated with the awards themselves or their corporate sponsors. With no basis presented for concluding the award is significant, and no independent reliable sourcing in the BLP itself, I see nothing supporting the claim that the subject is notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several past discussions determined that the FAME Award for Favorite Female Rookie is indeed well-known/significant. Consensus favoring the FAME Awards as well-known/significant still exists on WP. See this discussion, which took place only four months ago. Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article meets WP:PORNBIO standards because Brandy Talore won the FAME Award. Miss Talore's award was based on a fan vote conducted by several different nationally known adult media companies. A person must be well known to the public to win a publically voted award. As such, Brandy Talore is notable to the public and she is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The FAME Awards, themselves, have been debated on Wikipedia. The final decision is that a FAME Award is considered notable and significant enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theendoftheblear (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, She won F.A.M.E. Award.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The earlier discussions highlighted by Rebecca1990 took place a long time ago and standards have increased since. As Morbidthoughts highlighted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award "ANYBIO requires the award to be well-known and significant which is a higher standard than simply being notable". There is not sufficient evidnence that the award is "well-known & significant.Finnegas (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Finnegas (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Well known" and "significant" are not actually a quantifiable higher standard than "notable". In fact, the words are all synonyms of each other. The FAME Awards are well known because hundreds of thousands of people have voted for them, and many more have been interested in the results. A FAME Award is a significant industry achievement because it means that the recipient has stood out in some exceptional way to the public. The FAME Awards article was discussed as recently as August 2015, and the final determination was to keep the article. Theendoftheblear (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is simply wrong, contrary to consensus and practice. The "well-known/significant" standard parallels the use of the same language in WP:ANYBIO, where there is no dispute that it represents a higher standard than notable. There are many clear examples of notable awards/honors that don't demonstrate notability of their recipients -- Rhodes Scholars may be the most prominent example, but many military medals fall into that category, as do many British crown honors. PORNBIO was revised several years ago to tighten up this criterion in particular: it used to indicate that any notable award was sufficient, but that proved unsatisfactory, and more restrictive language was adopted, without any great controversy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The standard set by WP:PORNBIO is flawed to say the least. First of all, there are a few Wikipedians who have arbitrarily determined which awards are significant industry awards and which are not. Second, the receipt of an award does not make someone notable - especially in this industry. Finally, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a medium where users can create articles to share information on items in which they are subject matter experts or have done appropriate research. It is ridiculous as to how many bios have been recently deleted because people don't have anything better to do. Hobbamock (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This comment is EXACTLY right. The PORNBIO standards are at best, arbitrary, and at worst, show a profound lack of knowledge towards what makes a performer "notable". Brandy seems to meet the ridiculous standards thanks to her FAME award, but anyone who follows porn, especially big bust porn, knows that Brandy has been a big name in porn for more than a decade. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Note: I have recently edited the article in question here. The subject here has won "a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (recently found to be a notable award ceremony at AfD and basically comperable to the People's Choice Awards) "Favorite Female Rookie Starlet", which is similar to other well-known, major adult film award categories (AVN Award for Best New Starlet & XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet). See also the previous AfD discussion in 2007 about this subject that was apparently about this very award win. The fact that the award winners tied that year is pretty much meaningless. Guy1890 (talk) 06:21, 30 December 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.