Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen Scott

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. czar 04:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Scott[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)

The porn performer/model does not have significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore does not pass WP:BASIC in my view. The references in the article are niche porn industry outlets and a Google search found nothing better. The awards are not a sign of notability as the Porn Bio notability guideline was deprecated. Previously the article was deleted by prod but has been recreated. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. Independent searches for reliable source coverage is are complicated by Google News and Book hits matching 4 other persons with the same name. Coverage found or the porn star seem to be limited to porn award rosters, press releases and trade press interviews. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete With a stage name as common as Kristen Scott (that’s like Monica Hernandez for Latina women) you’d be hard pressed to find this specific one immediately. I’m not against industry-specific sources like AVN, because realistically, who else is going to interview a pornographic actor? You deal with a landmine in these kinds of articles. One minute you find out where they were born, the next you’re inadvertently watching an ad for cam girls. It’s not like the New York Times letting Stoya do op-eds. Trillfendi (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BD2412 T 23:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As there are many actresses and celebrities with the same name, Google may not be able to show many results. She has received various awards and has also participated in award ceremonies. Her film and she have been formally recognized by the International Film Festival. In my opinion, the article is notable.--SarojOffl (talk) 05:26, 16 Sptember 2020 (UTC)

Porn awards don't confer notability on the recipient without independent reliable sources that attest to the significance of the win. The WP:PORNBIO secondary notability guideline was deprecated in 2019 for this exact reason. As for "International Film Festival," you will need to be more specific and, more important, name a reliable source. Both the festival's and the actress' names are too generic, and independent searches yield false positives for a mainstream actress with a similar name. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I see from your edits, that you are referring to the Queen Palm International Film Festival. Two problems: 1. That TheHollywoodTimes reference is an obvious refactored press release from the filmmakers. 2. Neither the film Teenage Lesbian nor the festival articles have independent reliable references to demonstrate notability per WP:NFILM and WP:ORG respectively. Starring in a porn industry award-winning porn film is a very weak claim even for WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment: what are the criteria of notability then? If it were only because of the AVN awards, she would be notable. Unless you are contesting the notability of the AVN Awards as whole. On the other hand, what else undisputed criteria can you adopt to state the notabily of a porn performer? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 14:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackcat: The consensus since 2019 is that porn awards by themselves, even AVN Hall of Fame, are not enough to establish notability. A porn performer can still be notable by meeting the General Notability Guideline/WP:BASIC with significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources. Interviews and press releases don't count as secondary. Most porn sources like Fleshbot don't count as reliable. Porn award rosters lack depth of coverage and generally lack reliable secondary source coverage that proves significance. A porn performer also may be notable by passing one the the secondary criteria of WP:NACTOR, if and only if independent reliable secondary sources can support the claims. In this case, porn award wins + low quality sources do not add up to notability. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to establish notability. Pornographic awards are far too ubiquitous to be treated as in any way a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs require a good level of meaningful coverage. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:00, 19 September 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.