Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgette B (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 Delete. The consensus below is that the article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgette B[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bridgette B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is one solid source, an interview during her 3rd month in the industry. There is one award from an awards list that appears to have ~100 winners per year. I don't think we've met WP:N. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The AVN Award satisfies WP:PORNBIO. I think the article could use some stronger references, but I don't think it's at a point that warrants deletion of the article. - SudoGhost 08:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC) I'm not saying it should be deleted, but due to the comments here, I'm no longer convinced that it's exactly a keep, either. For the moment, at least, I'm neutral, although I definitely agree that additional reliable sources are required. - SudoGhost 12:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pornbio is a defective SNG because it permits the creation of BLPs where there is insufficient sources to meet the GNG. Basically a SNG is supposed to be a shortcut to help us establish areas where there are likely to be sources to meet GNG. In the arena of porn there is a clear consensus that getting an AVN only leads to coverage in the industry press which does not meet RS because they are not independant and have deficient fact checking because they happily publish any old tosh about porn stars that they are given. Since pornbio was written, the community has given a much stronger signal about BLPs and will not tolerate inadequately sourced BLPs. Where there is tension between an SNG, the GNG and the BLP policy its pretty clear that the meta consensus is to choose the GNG and BLP over the SNG. Therefore retention under pornbio isn't a policy based argument. This is position that DRV now takes routinely on pornbio and should this be closed as keep based on that basis I suspect we will see that being proved again. Spartaz Humbug! 09:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it's fair. Guidelines are to be "treated with common sense", and the PORNBIO guideline page quite explicitly provides that "meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Given the disfavor the community, from Jimmy Wales on down to undesirables like me, has expressed towards the current guideline, as well as the failure of the article to meet the BLP policy requirement of "being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources" (as opposed to promotional/PR copy), what would be unfair and unreasonable would be to apply the existing guideline text uncritically, broadly, and without regard to the community's clear disapproval. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if even PORNBIO would not exist, the subject would pass WP:ANYBIO#1. Cavarrone (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, while some AVN awards, like their "Best Actor/Actress"-type awards, satisfy the well-known/significant standards in PORNBIO and ANYBIO, extensive discussions of WP:PORNBIO make clear that there is no consensus support for the idea that all such awards establish notability. The same holds for similar awards. Awards in such downlevel, criterion-free categories as "Unsung Starlet/Siren" do not contribute significantly to, and do not establish notability. AVN's award count bloated to nearly 150 this year (including one for best use of Twitter by a female performer!), and it's no long reasonable to maintain that such honorifics are reliable evidence of notability, and hardly definitive proof. Second, the subject fails the GNG. The article contains no reliable, independent sourcing. None could be turned up a few months back when the article was originally AFD'd, none have been added to the article and none of any significance appear to be available via GNews or GBooks searches. Third, the article includes no reliably sourced biographical information of any consequence. Fourth, the situation here follows an unhappy pattern where a porn performer's article is deleted from Wikipedia (often more than once, as was the case here), only to abruptly receive an award qualifying them for Wikipedia. It's been clear that porn publicists view Wikipedia as a useful marketing tool; it's also clear that PR concerns heavily influence the AVN Awards -- virtually every half-page or larger ad in AVN guarantees an award nomination for the advertised release and/or its featured performer(s). To the extent that downlevel award categories reflect this influence, they should not be taken as evidence of notability.
And I fundamentally agree with Spartaz's argument as well. Jimmy Wales condemned PORNBIO as "seriously misguided", noting that porn industry sources were "rife with Kayfabe".[1] The recent RFC over PORNBIO was closed with a "strong consensus that the guideline is problematic", and the followup discussion was concluded with the note that while there wasn't quite a consensus to scrap PORNBIO entirely (as opposed to revamping it), that option had "the most consistent support." The community has decided that PORNBIO is not a viable method for assessing notability; the fact that we haven't settled on a replacement does not mean it should continue to be relied on in defiance of expressed community sentiment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Sheesh, are you still calling everything "PR"? It's from the AVN website, for crying out loud. Anyway, let me state two points the delete !voters are missing:
  1. HW, the diff you provided to what Jimmy Wales said was back in 2010. Who's to say he feels the same way now? (After all, consensus can change.) And if he really thinks WP:PORNBIO should be deleted (which he never actually said)...he's Jimbo Wales! Don't you think he would have deleted it himself by now?
  2. If you think a guideline isn't appropriate, an AfD about a subject that passes that guideline is not the place to bring up such an argument; it should be brought up on the guideline's talk page. In this case, if the argument was brought up at WP:BIO (the parent of WP:PORNBIO), the guideline was changed and then this article was revisited, then an AfD would make sense. And I do understand why the article was deleted the first time (for the record, I didn't create the article that time), but now it was created again because she passes the guideline. (In fact, the admin that salted the article title unsalted it.) What about this is so hard to understand? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the convincing arguments of User:Erpert, User:Morbidthoughts, User:Cavarrone, and User:SudoGhost. It was July of 2010 that Jimbo spoke spoke toward a different BLP entirely and offered an opinion about a WP:PORNBIO having issues and that some Porn souces were unsuitable and that the lesson to be learned was "we don't write bad biographies full of random trivia about non-notable people"... but that "problematic" guideline has been continually edited to address its being problematic. And even if choosing to ignore a "problematic" PORNBIO, we can then look upstream to the less problematic WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. If the award is well-known and notable (even if only to its genre and to genre sources), we have a pass of WP:ANYBIO. If any source offers promotional material within its pages, we ignore such and instead consider those portions of the source that have gone through editorial oversight to then find a pass of WP:GNG. By way of example, The New York Times is considered a reliable source, but we do not use advertisements or press releases within its pages to cite articles, nor do we declare the entire paper suspect because they inlcude advertisements and press rleases. We instead use those authored portions which have gone through accepted editorial oversight. That's what common sense dictates. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This analysis is clearly off-base. Despite what MQS asserts about PORNBIO being "continually edited", its text remains word-for-word identical to that at the time Jimbo criticized it (aside from a which/that substitution). The recent RFC established that the community rejects this guideline, and both common sense and policy call for us to conform to that determination. As for ANYBIO, its standard is "well-known and significant", a stricter standard, in this context, than MQS's "well-known and notable". Rhodes scholarships, for example, are both more well-known and more significant than downlevel genre awards, but by established consensus do not establish notability. And the argument that the award criteria are to be evaluated by within-the-genre standards has repeatedly been rejected, both for porn awards and in other fields (eg, webcomics, self-published books). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, exactly per Spartaz. PORNBIO is a defective guideline, and since editors are always free to disregard guidelines in the encyclopaedia's best interests, I disregard it every single time. An AVN award is not evidence of notability. AVN gives away awards very prolifically indeed: please actually look at this page and then tell me honestly that you believe every single one of those performers is in some way significant or important. And besides, what we have here is a BLP that lacks basic biographical details of almost every kind up to and including the subject's actual name. Everything in this "article" is pure kayfabe and we have no independent reliable sources for any genuine biographical information at all. It's therefore a gross BLP violation. Kill it with fire.—S Marshall T/C 16:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow...IDHT, anyone? I'll only say this one more time: if you don't like WP:PORNBIO, bring it up at, I don't know, Wikipedia:Guidelines for deletion or something. Don't say something like "an AVN award is not evidence of notability" when the converse of that is the very first point of the notability guideline. Anyway, who cares if Bridgette's actual name isn't listed? Most porn stars nowadays don't reveal their real names. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to have this discussion with you again, Erpert. Please show me an independent, reliable source for any biographical information about this person.—S Marshall T/C 17:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • In not speaking about press releases, but instead rather toward authored aricles that have the benefit of editorial oversight in such sources as Adult Video News, El Diario, XBiz, and XRCO, would you the feel that such sources are unable to offer independent commetary or analysis, despite the editorial oversight? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • In that case, how come the article is so atrociously-sourced? Let's go through the listed sources one by one. The first appears to be user-submitted content (see the prominent "submit bio corrections" button?) The second is an interview. It contains no analysis or pen portrait from the "journalist" who wrote it, it's just a transcription of what the performer said about herself, and is therefore a primary source. The third is a passing mention that contains no biographical information about the subject. The fourth is a press release. The fifth is a passing mention that contains no biographical information about the subject. The sixth is a passing mention that contains no biographical information about the subject. The seventh is a passing mention that contains no biographical information about the subject, and the eighth is a passing mention that contains no biographical information about the subject. The total number of independent, reliable sources suitable for biographical reference is 0. How can we possibly permit an unsourced biography of a living person we can't even name to appear in Wikipedia?—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sources can't be derived from interviews? I think you're a little confused by WP:PRIMARY, which says that articles cannot be based purely on primary sources; it doesn't say primary sources can't be used at all. For example, you were wondering why Bridgette's real name isn't listed. If I came across an interview that had her explicitly saying, "My real name is such-and-such," then that would be added to the article. In fact, all the biographical articles I have read on Wikipedia have the birth name sourced from a primary source (or at least a {{fact}} tag); otherwise, it isn't mentioned.
            • One more thing: I don't know where the "I'm not going to have this discussion with you again, Erpert" reply came from, but it sounded like a father scolding his child. Tone it down, please. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Would you please be kind enough to provide an independent, reliable source that contains any biographical information about the article subject.—S Marshall T/C 08:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment Just a couple of considerations, 1) WP does not require a full biography for article's subjects. Obviously articles like that must be improved, such as most the wiki's articles (ie see tons of articles about soccer players): for this reason we have rankings like Stub, Start, etc. WP is a work-in-progress website, and I don't know any article that could be considered "finished" or not in need of improvements 2) IAFD could not be considered an user-submitted website... the opportunity of reporting by e-mail corrections or additions (that, as indicated, would be subsequently verified by IAFD) is not the same than generate by himself the content of a website; ie the same service is offered by the websites of mainstream newspapers such as La Repubblica or La Stampa 3) about the actor's real names see WP:BLPPRIVACY. Furthermore, we have articles about people we do not only do not know the real and/or complete names but of whom was even questioned their very existence... Cavarrone (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to those points in the same order that you make them: (1) Unfinished articles are, of course, perfectly okay provided satisfactory sources exist, but in this case they don't; (2) IAFD is run by "volunteer editors" much as Wikipedia is, and they prominently offer the facility for users to generate content on their main page and their FAQ page--it clearly is a host for user-submitted content; (3) We certainly do have articles about nonexistent people including fictional characters (and Bridgette B is probably best understood as a fictional character portrayed by an unnamed Spanish "actress"). What we shouldn't have is articles without decent sources, like this one.—S Marshall T/C 12:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To respond to your points:
  1. The sources in the article don't seem to be satisfactory in your eyes.
  2. IAFD is definitely not a host for user-submitted content (like TV.com, jumptheshark.com, etc.). If that's what you really think, you really need to prove it; then, every biographical porn article on here would have to be revamped.
  3. You might initially consider Bridgette to be a fictional character.
And I was trying not to go here, but considering you keep writing "actress" in quotes, I have to ask...do you just not like porn? If you don't, that's fine, but that also doesn't give you the right to insist that an article about that subject is non-notable when notability has clearly been proven. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, the discussion is straying away from legitimate policy discussion. IAFD, first of all, aspires to list every performer in the field, regardless of notability, so an IAFD entry can't be evidence of notability. It's also a self-published website, which began as the project of one or two individuals, and therefore its use is very difficult to square with BLP policy. And, of course, since it processes "thousands of corrections" every month, there are substantial RS questions about its use as well. As for "actress", see this discussion [2], and try to stop flirting with AGF violations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who said IAFD had anything to do with notability? And I fail to see what the discussion you linked to has anything to do with this discussion. Also, I'm not "flirting with AGF violations"; my point is that other users keep stating why the actress is notable, and S. Marshall in turn keeps saying that the guideline the actress passes is defective and that we should "disregard guidelines in the encyclopaedia's best interests". Who's to say deleting an article about a notable porn star is in Wikipedia's best interests? It sounds more like doing so would be in S. Marshall's best interests (especially with that "kill it with fire" remark). Besides, a rule shouldn't be ignored just because you don't like the subject.
Now, enough about debating the supposed defectiveness of the guideline and back to discussion about the actual actress... Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lets do that. Please can you list the detailed secondary sources that allow the subject of this BLP to pass GNG/N. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And while you're listing the sources, Erpert, would you please stop talking about what you think I might dislike for a little while?—S Marshall T/C 12:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indepedent secondary source material present in the article or available. There needs to be commentary, analysis or discussion on the subject. Without this, the article is directory information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't understand; do the delete !voters have a different definition for "secondary source" than the rest of Wikipedia has? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are looking for something that fits the GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 18:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I said... Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 05:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clearly you don't get that the GNG is the community's expectations for sources to meet notability. You don't have sources that meet that. Please provide some that do. Spartaz Humbug! 07:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I notice that you're not actually answering the question: how do the sources in the article not qualify as secondary sources per Wikipedia guidelines? (In addition, you're the only one that still seems to be debating the whole GNG argument). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Independent secondary sources are required, a point you've been ignoring. Promotional pages generally aren't acceptable for establishing for notability, whether they're primary or secondary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's probably because the sources you cite have already been debunked. Spartaz Humbug! 17:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no secondary source content, even from a dependent source.

    Every sentence contains basic facts only. The article is no more than a recounting of primary source material.

    Is she a good, poor, outstanding, mediocre actress? Has she made any impression? Has she failed to make any impression? When she played Lorena, was there any commentary on how well she did it? Was here contribution to the first Spanish porn parody instrumental to its reception? Does she like chocolate, or travel? *Any* commentary that is not basic fact? Secondary source material tells us that someone thinks these things. Then, for it to be admissable for Wikipedia, you need to be able to say who said it, and in what reliable source.

    Without secondary source material, what are you doing other than compiling a database of every actor who has [done some thing]? If that is all you are doing, then you are looking for The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand why the delete !voters still don't get it, but I'll answer you all at once:
  1. HW (and SmokeyJoe): I'm not ignoring anything. As far as an independent source, um...the last time I checked, AVN.com is an independent source (and a list of this year's AVN winners is hardly a promotional page). Do you have proof that Bridgette is affiliated with it or something?
  2. Spartaz: The sources in the article were debunked...by you (without merit).
I mean, really; why is it so easy for you three to dismiss WP:PORNBIO and state that the sources aren't secondary when they clearly are? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 05:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that AVN is not a reliable source because there is inadequate fact checking and too much willingness to publish any old bollocks on request. Spartaz Humbug! 15:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list of AVN Award winners from AVN.com isn't reliable? Since when? (And what is "too much willingness to publish any old bollocks on request" supposed to mean?) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example, note that reference 4[3], added to the article by MQS, who inexplicably identified it as a "staff"-written article, is essentially word-for-word identical to a press release issued two days earlier[4] and identified as such on other sites[5]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was easy enough to correct.[6] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I didn't add those. If you think those sources are unreliable, take them out, but don't dismiss the entire article because of that. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trolling? You brought the sources up. Do you have any other ones or are we all agreed that the only argument to keep this is a SNG which is defective and run contrary to the GNG and BLP? Spartaz Humbug! 05:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I am not trolling. I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion. And it has already been established that AfD is not the place to debate whether a guideline is defective, so I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to game the system. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is most certainly a place for noting that a guideline being cited to keep and article under discussion is defective and that there is already a consensus that PORNBIO is indeed defective and the practice of DRV is to endorse this. So having established that keep arguments based on pornbio are not policy based we are trying to establish if we have any sources. And, I'm afraid you are actually 100% wrong about what AFD is for and deciding between competing guidelines in individual cases is most certainly part of the function of AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 11:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is for discussing supposedly defective guidelines? Point out on WP:AFD where it says that, please. Anyway, this discussion is going to be closed before the day is over, so you need to just stop. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily as this could be relisted although I personally feel that we have a solid delete consensus and anything else is going to be very controversial, but I'm doing this to try and educate you about the AFD process. Wikipedia rules are descriptive, not prescriptive, that is they document what we do not dictate how we do stuff and sometimes there is a lag between the way we doing things changing and the policy being updated. I'm confident about my interpretation because I have been active at AFD and DRV since 2006. I was an admin between 2007 and the end of 2011 working predominantly in AFD/DRV and have closed thousands of AFDs and DRVs. I'd obviously take that with some sodium chloride as this is pretty much an appeal to authority rather than an argument but, as you pointed out, the argument is really done. Spartaz Humbug! 17:33, 11 April 2012 (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/Bridgette_B_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1080149613"