Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella Bing (3rd 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. The delete arguments that Bing does not meet the WP:GNG and that the industry award does not fall under WP:PORNBIO (and even if it does, would not trump GNG) are more convincing.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carmella Bing[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nontrivial biographical content. No reliable sourcing for biographical content. No independent reliable sourcing. Prior AFD did not reach consensus on whether the UKAFTA awards meet the "well-known and significant industry award standard" of PORNBIO; it has since become clear that they do not because: 1) it was not an industry award, but a personal moneymaking project of one individual and a production company he was associated; the industry group which supposedly sponsored it denies any connection to the awards [1]; 2) the award was "pay-for-play", with even an award winner acknowledging that "it seemed that all it took to win awards was a few phone calls to the right people and an advance payment for a full table at the event";[2] and 3) the awards were notoriously given to unrelased videos [3][4], and even to non-existent/never-released videos (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Brooks (actress) (2nd nomination). This is a BLP with no verifiable content concerning the article subject and her work, and that alone compels deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. No evidence that she even meets Pornbio. I will also point out that I have doubts that the IAFD source that is so widely used in this article is a WP:RS since the database is "maintained by a volunteer staff of editors" and the site solicits contribution from readers. Meters (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Movie Database (IMDB), Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD), and Adult Film Database (AFD) are not reliable sources - they are not independent and lack any kind of editorial integrity needed to qualify as reliable sources WP:RS. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- there is some coverage here and here and a mention in Cosmopolitan and a write-up in a Spanish publication.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Update 575+ pageviews a day means there's a huge fan base here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- "Some coverage"? Local news reports of a misdemeanor meth-related conviction that is so minor it was scheduled to be expunged from her criminal record in 90 days so long as she complied with what are, in effect, probation conditions? That clearly has nothing to do with notability and under BLP policy doesn't belong in the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it was a normal non-celeb civilian with a meth charge, yes, it would be a non-issue -- but celebrities doing drugs is a big deal in the world of pop culture, which is the world we all swim in, including Wikipedia. It's how things are. Like it or not, a porn star's meth romp causes huge media attention, which spells, in Wikipedia, n-o-t-a-b-i-l-i-t-y.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know better than this, Tom. Brief pieces in a local newsweekly aren't huge media attention; and this kind of mini-coverage wouldn't establish notability in any other context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - won of award, meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 06:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Im not optimistic about deleting articles when (as it currently stands) we are still in flux as our understanding of criteria for articles such as this one. Therefore, at least for now, this article is not non-notable. Pwolit iets (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Our understanding of WP:GNG and WP:RS is not in flux. David in DC (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When active, she has been one of the most well-known performers. That's why I'm pretty sure that the article only needs to be improved. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an argument to delete without prejudice to recreating, not an argument to keep. A poorly sourced BLP should be deleted immediately. David in DC (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Wikipedia article must be based on significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources, per WP:GNG. This article, on the other hand, is based primarily on IAFD, which, for the reasons stated by Meters is not a reliable source, per WP:RS. There's also one reference that purports to source a nomination for a major industry award, which I guess is meant to bring this under the SNG for WP:PORNBIO. However, as the nominator points out, this ain't anything like the kind of award contemplated by PORNBIO. Plus, an SNG cannot trump GNG.
As far as press coverage of a porn star's "meth romp" conferring notability as that term is defined on WP, that may be true in a mechanistic way. It generates a lot of press, some of which may be press that qualifies as reliable sources. Nonetheless, not everything that's in the press belongs in Wikipedia. WP:NOT has a specific clause about WP:NOTGOSSIP.
And as for the number of daily pageviews meaning anything at all in our AfD analysis, I disagree, strongly. I'm guessing that there's a public appetite for a great many things that don't belong here. If we're gonna make decisions based on pageviews, we're gonna add a whole lotta crap and delete a whole lot of important, notable, well-sourced info. !Voting is evil but not anywhere as evil as letting the lowest common denominator determine what goes in our encyclopedia. David in DC (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you're less likely to consider a reliable trusted tertiary source such as Boobpedia?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Or that you might not heed the words of a serious critic who wrote her art is the result of her understanding and compassion for the world about her, and a staggering depth and incredible empathy which flows from some secret place within the unique parameters of her soul.?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the I can edit boobpedia. So it seems not to be a WP:RS. The Bing Dynasty appears to be a blog devoted to Ms. Bing. So that's not a WP:RS either. The quote you've provided comes from The Bing Dynasty and does not attribute the quote to anyone. Does the quote also appear in some reliable source? If so, does the reliable source identify the serious critic? Whoever the serious critic is, they sure do seem enamored of Ms. Bing. Thanks for the links. David in DC (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I was at the Museum of Modern Art, did I see an exhibition devoted to the Bing Dynasty, featuring her staggering depth ... from some secret place within; or was it about the Ming Dynasty; Bing, Ming, can't recall.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article quality in itself is irrelevant and does not trump guidelines. she is in fact an award winning porn actress. sources verifies. covers WP:GNG. Article quality can be fixed, and size of the article is really irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rubbish. Not any "award" establishes notability. The article has no reliable sources covering this person in any depth; a single entry on a mile-long list of award nominations doesn't cut it, nor do entries in directories of user-contributed content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. The current article contains two lines of biographical information and appears to exist solely to promoted Ms Bing's web site, which I'm sure she uses for commercial purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources. No encylopedic content, and unlikely every to be. Includes innuendo, and invited further. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.