Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keisha (actress)

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. Tone 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keisha (actress)[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)

Sourcing is terrible. Doesn't meet current standards for a BLP Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the depreciated WP:PORNBIO. Porn awards are no longer a free ride to notability. Wm335td (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is terrible. I remember back in 2012 when someone lobbed an attack on Wikipedia for having more articles on pornographic film actresses than women poets. I am not sure even then that was actually true, it may just have been women poets were less likely to be categorized as such, while pornographic film actresses were always categorized as such, poets were often just in geneder neutral cats but pornographic actors never were (even when for unfathonable reasons we did not seperate non-pornographic actors by sex, despite this being the term where the male/female terms have survived the most, actress is still a word, poetess has been dead well over a century).John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:GNG. Porn awards, after the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO, no longer confer notability attributes on a person. -The Gnome (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No sources at all in one of only four content sections is bad, but the AVN Hall of Fame and the XRCO Hall of Fame are not some unclear former WP:PORNBIO awards. The latter article literally says "some of the most notable adult entertainment works and workers", that matches WP:NARTIST "The person is regarded as an important figure" or "(c) won significant critical attention". –84.46.53.207 (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the independent indepth coverage of them being in the HOF showing these awards are meaningful within the wider world? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I also can't tell why a Nebula award or Turing award are meaningful within the wider world, but whatever a good answer might be, it should not depend on a former enwiki-internal guideline or policy. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i invite you to look at all the discussions relating to the red links in the list of project porn deletions and see how many were members of a HOF. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to say that surviving ten years in the sex industry is automatically notable, I'm trying to say that it's not the same idea as those hilarious "sex toy" + Adultcon "roll of honor" awards I've removed from Sasha Grey. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nebula and Turing Award winners get mainstream press attention for these achievements (the very basis of wiki notability). The affected secondary guidelines (WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE) rely on independent reliable sources that attest to the significance of the person's achievement. Porn awards, including hall of fame inductions, generally don't have that kind of independent support. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that you fixed the Adultcon {{notability}} tag, thanks, and a better answer than only an ACK in an edit summary: Out of curiosity I tried a BEFORE on 15th AVN Awards, there is one independent Adult Cinema Review source for this award. No MSM, but MSM (mis-)representing the wider world also don't always cover Nebula + Turing + Postel award + Hugo award + Fields Medal. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite my best efforts to dig up reliable secondary source material outside of non-mainstream porn sources, Ms. Keisha does not meet general notability guidelines. And alas, AVN is not a mainstream award - you can't even compare it to the the Nebula Awards, which get covered in mainstream publications. Basically, if you aren't into porn or in the industry, you likely don't care. You don't see the Los Angeles Times writing about the AVN awards like you do the Nebula Awards. We're working hard to cut out the cruft for WP:PORN and focusing on quality content about truly notable subjects. Now, once I gain access to Porn Journal and dig up some hard copy sources I'm trying to purchase and I find something about Keisha that helps her pass, I'm all about working on it... but for now, delete. Missvain (talk) 18:23, 16 January 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.