Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Ivy (4th 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 and salt. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Ivy[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)

Deleted twice at AfD and salted. The new version got moved in from draft space. May not be strict G4 candidate, but lack of notability was established even when WP:PORNBIO was in effect. Citations are full of junk sources like The Daily Sport, self-published blogs and celebrity net worth sites. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did some quick cleanup of unreliable sources, leaving basically nothing but interviews. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article failed even when we had the now destroyed notability guidelines giving special preference to pornographic performers. Now when we do not have those, we can see that such publicity driving internal industry promotionalism does not rise to the level of 3rd party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Creator of the page here. Thank you for the citation cleanup. As for the remaining references, note that not all of them are interviews. Now, I understand the effort to maintain credible journalistic practices but I am appalled by the number of articles written on other porn actresses that do not follow the same standards. Many are based heavily on interviews and poor sources. I urge all to exercise this same diligence in those cases as well.StreetSoda_talk 00:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHATABOUTX is listed under articles to avoid in AfD debates. Articles stand or fall based on their own merits. As for poorly written porn articles, the PORNBIO secondary notability guideline, which protected many of these articles is no more. These articles are being culled. Madison Ivy has been deleted twice per editor consensus. The latest iteration does not solve the notability problems discussed previously. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Johnpacklambert: Did you just assume I am an industry insider? Before making such statements, peer into my history log to see if there's any validity to your assumptions. Cheers!StreetSoda_talk 00:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Streetsoda: I read John's comment as referring to the porn industry's promotion machine (porn trade press, award ceremonies, and Internet flooding) and the article's low quality references, not to you personally. The problem with sources for porn have been discussed extensively since 2006. It finally came down to the consensus that WP:PORNBIO should be retired. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I must've misread. I didn't know any better. Apologies.StreetSoda_talk 05:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence to support an article. Fails WP:BIO. It is a pestilence on Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 15:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem here comes down to the ever moving goal post for PORNBIO. Madison Ivy is indeed a successful pornographic actress for the past decade, yet according to Wikipedia even with multiple awards it wouldn’t be enough. I don’t know what SFW sources people expect to find for these people unless they magically (albeit rarely) cross over into the mainstream. Trillfendi (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. She didn't even meet the standards of PORNBIO when it was in effect.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are 21 other language versions of this page. It seems highly unlikely that the English language version is the only version that cannot pass notability guidelines when all the others appear to. I'm sure other sources could be pulled from the other language version of this page to be used on the English version. Helper201 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That rationale is circular. Other language versions of Wikipedia copy from one another, especially from en.Wikipedia, which as nearly 6 million articles, more than all the others. Interwiki efforts for completeness don't establish notability. Have you looked at the other wiki pages? I did, many are stubs with an external link to IMDb or IAFD as their source. Others have the exact same sources as the en wiki page. As I asked you on the talk page, if you can find a non-trivial WP:RELIABLE reference in those other wiki pages, please share it here. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: This article appears to have been translated back from another wiki after it was deleted twice and salted here. en.Wikipedia has tightened its standards for notability and quality of sources. The most recent deprecation of WP:PORNBIO was part of that evolution. Other wikis are free to accept or reject that change. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the issue of using sources from or relating to the porn industry. Of course that is where virtually all the information about pornographic film actors is likely to come from. The industry - while popular - is not a mainstream or open phenomenon, so is reliant on sources largely or entirely devoted to the industry. You question the reliability of sources such as Brazzers, but do you have anything to suggest such a source is unreliable? At the end of the day its a business, and one that from what I have seen from the sources has signed a contract agreement with this person. I would imagine a professional business would be likely to provide accurate information about someone it is in contract with. Helper201 (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt fails everything and the keep votes have no basis in policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:15, 19 December 2019 (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.