Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinzie Kenner

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. By raw numbers this at first blush looks like a no consensus, but AfD is not a vote. While it's not forbidden for very new editors to comment in an AfD, it is necessary that their comments specifically address policy compliance. In this case, they often did not. The discussion here seems to have reasonably come to the conclusion that this subject is unlikely to pass the applicable SNG, and no indication whatever that the article may pass the GNG. Especially given that this is a biography of a living person in a potentially sensitive and controversial area, the outcome must then be a delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kinzie Kenner[edit]

Kinzie Kenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't imagine that cream dream is a notable or significant achievement. I'm not even clear what you have to do to win in. Therefore fails PORNBIO and GNG. Note that interviews are primary sources and therefore do not add to notability, Spartaz Humbug! 16:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Cream Dream is an individual-based category of the well-known XRCO Awards, meeting the letter of PORNBIO. I'm leaning weak keep without a compelling reason why not. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The XRCO Award for Cream Dream satisfies WP:PORNBIO#1. The only awards excluded from PORNBIO at the moment are scene-related and ensemble categories. Consensus in a couple of recent discussions favors excluding award categories issued in two years or less as well. Cream Dream is not scene-related/ensemble and has existed for 15 years. Also known as Teen Cream Dream, this award is given to female performers who were prominently featured in the teen pornography genre that year, so it goes hand in hand with PORNBIO#2 ("Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre"). Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - winner, meets of PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     14:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's hard to say that an award is well-known/significant when, as here, there's not even a reliable source saying what it's given out for. If Rebecca's explanation is accurate, this is just another niche award, like the MILF categories (which by consensus don't establish notability), with no solid inclusion criteria, and is more of a consolation prize for actresses who weren't nominated for more genuinely significant awards. It's quite a stretch to say that (often) mid-twenties women dressing up as/pretending to be high school girls constitutes a significant genre, and it's really hard to believe that this performer has made "unique contributions" to it. The bottom line for me is this: No real independent reliability sourcing for the article, no source explaining what the award is even given out for, and no sources indicating that the vaguely named "Cream Dream Award" is significant, means that the article subject falls well below the notability threshold. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. XRCO Award is well-known/significant award given by organization! (since 1985!). Browsing your comments, only AVN is well-known/significant and nothing more. PORNBIO not say "only AVN". So, you wrong. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     23:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How dishonest. There is absolutely no consensus against including MILF, Teen, or any other "niche" awards in PORNBIO. In fact, there is consensus that this specific award, XRCO's Cream Dream, does satisfy PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How dishonest? Not in the least. You, however, are citing a five-year-old AFD that predates important revisions to PORNBIO, and, in particular, the consensus that we take into account both the awardgiver and the award category in determining in determining whether an award category is significant. You know perfectly well there was a consensus that the MILF awards don't meet the "well-known"/"significant" standard of PORNBIO. In fact, during the late 2013 discussions that led to the current PORNBIO revisions, you acknowledged that explicitly. You said "You think MILF awards are insignificant? So, if a porn actress actually won one of these awards, not a nomination but an actual win, she would not be notable?" That shows that the issue was clearly framed and discussed. It didn't go your way. If anybody here's beingdishonest, it would be the editor who pretends the relevant discussions didn't happen (and who was called out by two admins for "appalling" bad faith in a deletion discussion a while back). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2005, Teagan Presley won both New Starlet and Cream Dream at the same XRCO ceremony. [1] In 2008, Bree Olson won both Starlet of the Year and Cream Dream at the same XRCO ceremony. [2] In 2013, Lily Carter won both Best Actress and Cream Dream at the same XRCO ceremony. [3] Your claim that XRCO's Cream Dream award is "a consolation prize for actresses who weren't nominated for more genuinely significant awards" is false. Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The award is non-notable. We are dealing with an industry that manufactures awards and in other ways tries to create an aura of notability. We need to cut through this fog and limit articles to being on people who actually are notble. The person here is not, so the article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The XRCO Awards are obviously a "well-known industry award" ceremony, and the (Teen) Cream Dream Award category has been given out to a virtual whos-who of young porn starlets in the past. The past AfDs related to Allysin Chaynes also seem to be illustrative here, and I see no reason to go against that past concensus now. Guy1890 (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. PORNBIO requires that an award be "well-known and significant". Being "well-known" isn't enough, being notable isn't enough. One of the reasons the guideline language was changed was the consensus recognition that the nature of an award category needed to be taken into account in assessing its weight/value in evaluating notability. "Best Actress" is a much more significant award than "Best Boobs". "Best New Actress" is much more significant than "Twitter Queen". At the time of the Allysin Chaynes AFD, PORNBIO did not take award category significance into account, and it indicated that all notable awards met its requirements. Extensive discussion and consensus has made the PORNBIO SNG significantly more restrictive. Surviving an AFD before the pertinent SNG just plainly doesn't doesn't show much, if anything, if whether a subject meets current requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've been actively participating at AfD, we've always taken into account both whether the award ceremony in question was a "well-known industry award" and whether the specific award category in question was a "significant" (or major, in my own words) award category. I think the history of who's been given the XRCO (Teen) Cream Dream Award proves that it's a major award category. It's also pretty clear (from the evidence presented above) that it's not at all "a consolation prize for actresses who weren't nominated for more genuinely significant awards." Guy1890 (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Obviously, a discussion needs to be had regarding what awards are considered notable under WP:PORNBIO. Without a clear definition, this AfD is headed for "no consensus". clpo13(talk) 18:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no no, no. The standard in PORNBIO is "well-known and significant". Notable isn't enough. This point is supported by broiad consensus, and isn't porn-specific. The fact that a few SPAs and porn devotees tendentiously dispute this doesn't render the longstanding consensus inapplicable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 18:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Define "well known and significant" then, since there seems to be some disagreement. clpo13(talk) 21:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca Min al Khadr (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca. I'll agree, though, that the article doesn't make it clear that the XRCO award is notable. The article could use some work. For example, she was also nominated for Female Performer of the Year in the AVN Awards in 2007 but this isn't mentioned in the article. Perhaps there are other awards she's won that weren't noted — I think more work on the article could make this a clearer "keep". pumik9 (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Passes bare minimum notability at a glance. I echo the sentiment this article seems to need improvement.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep her contributions to the field of teen-aged girl adult pleasure films cannot go unoticied'. Considering her prestigious (and very well deserved) win of the "Cream Dream" award helps this young beaut pass GNG by a mile and not to mention PORNOGRAPHICBIOPGAPHY. I also took into consideration the awarding committee, X-Rated Critics Organization, which is on par if not above the level of other awarding bodies such as the International Olympic Committee and the Nobel Committees. Julie2016 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been a ridiculous nomination, sadly, it looks like the deltioninists will win. I suggest the closing admin strike out any !votes not based on policy and I heavily suspect sockputting or at least meatpuppting in this thread ;)Julie2016 (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - User:Julie2016 is a brand new account that came right to AFD, something a bit interesting for a new account to do. --allthefoxes (Talk) 21:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete - Under WP:GNG, significant coverage means source material that addresses the topic directly and in detail. So much has been made above about the award yet there is little to no coverage that addresses this award life event for Kinzie Kenner. What is comes down to is that the collective of available source material needs to provide a detailed description of Kinzie Kenner's life that portrays her experience of life events. The source material in the article, some of which is not Wikipedia reliable source material, only provides just basic facts. I did a search and did not find source material for the article. This explains why the article reads like a List of Kinzie Kenner facts. Because of the lack of source material, the Wikipedia article cannot be improved to provide a portrait of her life events and her experience of these life events. Delete. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2016 (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/Kinzie_Kenner&oldid=1069067073"