Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Veracruz

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.

After a deletion review, this is being re-closed as delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus to delete - only 2 comments in past 7 days suggests discussion isn't progressing. I'm not convinced by the argument that the deletion of one poor article about one particular award renders the overall awards meaningless.. fish&karate 11:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Vanessa Veracruz[edit]

Vanessa Veracruz (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)

An unremarkable porn actress with an article which almost solely consists of a nomination table. No significant RS coverage can be found. The subject fails PORNBIO as XBIZ Girl/Girl Performer of the Year award is not significant and well known. This is essentially a WP:DIRECTORY listing of a BLP with no meaningful biographical information or RS present. Note: subject's award "AVN Award for All-Girl Performer of the Year" was deleted at AfD on Sept 12, confirming that the award is not significant and well known; pls see . K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. These AfDs for winners are getting ridiculous. The XBIZ Girl/Girl Performer of the Year award is not significant according to whom? (In addition, an article being short is not grounds for deletion.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 21:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meets PORNBIO as well as GNG, Ofcourse this !vote has absolutely nothing to do with HOTTIE & all that... –Davey2010Talk 22:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find WP:HOTTIE. Is this a relevant guideline? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sources demonstrate that the subject meets GNG? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It will be one day, If there's something I'll accomplish before leaving this place it will be that , "Which sources demonstrate that the subject meets GNG?" - Them all, Every single source in that article meets GNG trust me I'm an expert when it comes to GNG lol –Davey2010Talk 01:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Davey, you seem less like an expert in GNG and more like someone who is evaluating the subject of the article based on physical appearance. Last I checked, on Wikipedia, that's not a relevant guideline. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that, like your reference to your evaluation of the subject's aesthetic merits, your suggestion that each of the sources given in the article satisfies GNG is a joke, not a serious vote, as they comprise, in total, an entry in IAFD, a page from the subject's own website, routine announcements by AVN and XBIZ, and an interview (thus not independent) published on a website described by Reuters as existing to cater to porn sites.[1] I also think it's highly inappropriate to suggest, even in jest, that we should consider subjects' "hotness" in making notability determinations: it's precisely these sorts of comments that fuel the perception that Wikipedia culture is sexist. Rebbing 04:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And it's precisely why with comments like yours that this place has no humour anymore ... I'm entitled to my opinions and with the greatest of respect if you don't like the comment then ignore it or better still (Redacted). –Davey2010Talk 04:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's very accurate analysis; this BLP has no independent, reliable sourcing and virtually no biographical content. What's ridiculous is the insistence by porn-obsessed editors that receiving any award given by a PR business whose clients control the award selection process overrides utter failure to even approach meeting GNG requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Independent" means independent of her, not independent of pornography. I'm not sure why that's still so hard to understand. And even if there weren't any independent sources, that isn't automatic grounds for deletion. BTW, can you actually provide proof that pornography is a business "whose clients control the award selection process overrides utter failure to even approach meeting GNG requirements"? Better yet, how about someone linking to a consensus that the award she won isn't significant? (And following up with the usual "you're being dishonest and disruptive" statement will accomplish nothing.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Erpert, you're deliberately misrepresenting my comment. I said that XBIZ is a PR business (it's part of AdNet Media, which stands for Advertising Network), and its own award announcements have stated that nominations are selected/submitted by its "clients". That fact has been in the XBIZ Awards article, uncontroversially, for years. You know this, because this point gas been discussed here before. And challenging well-proven statements like this, knowing yourself that they're accurate, i sdishonest behavior, and doesn't become any less dishonest because you sort-of-but-not-really deny that in advance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how you didn't actually address the "independent of her, not independent of pornography" part. But I'm still not battling with you (and you're discrediting yourself whenever you do that, you know). If you can actually make objective comments without the usual quasi-insults (and all bold text) go ahead; otherwise, we're done here. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a misreading of independent as in independent reliable sources - that is sources that are not affiliated, which in this case, is not the case. As a Biography of a Living person, inadequate sourcing, as demonstrated by this article, is indeed grounds for deletion. In fact, as a BLP it should probably be speedy deleted, as being in contradiction to BLP. How about if Erpert provide sources that demonstrate the only award is a significant award? Challenging someone to prove a negative doesn't work very well, and rather than consensus, how about some sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is more than one award win a requirement? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: which sources demonstrate that the subject meets GNG? None are available in the article (bio section is virtually empty), and none have been presented at the AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the "XBIZ Girl/Girl Performer of the Year award" was a significant award, then reliable sources independent of XBIZ and the nominees and awardees would have discussed the award. But they haven't. All but one of the sources lacks any pretense of independence. That is an interview published by the aptly named Fleshbot, a project of clickbait gossip site Gawker, which recently filed bankruptcy after court decisions that ruled it violated personal privacy. This source is utterly worthless for a biography of a living person on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. specialized awards of this sort are not major awards. The sources, as mentioned, are not reliable in any case. Independent sourcing does not require sources ioutside the field of pornography, but it requires better than gawker et al. DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, start a new AfD only if PORNBIO is changed. This clearly passes the current WP:PORNBIO#1 criteria, "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." I bet almost everyone claiming that Lesbian Performer of the Year awards aren't notable wouldn't say the same thing about Gay Performer of the Year awards. It would be an obvious double standard to consider Gay Performer of the Year notable on Wikipedia under PORNBIO, but not Lesbian Performer of the Year. I actually think it's a shame these porn ceremonies took so long to add this category, which should have been created many years, possibly even decades, ago. I'm willing to have a discussion on PORNBIO and may even agree to tightening it, but only if the proposed exclusion is reasonable. Here is what is definitely not a reasonable exclusion: genre-specific awards. First of all, PORNBIO itself supports the inclusion of genre-specific awards ("has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre"). What better evidence of meeting that criteria is there than genre-specific awards? The exclusion of genre-specific awards would also result in the loss of entire categories on WP, like Category:Actors in gay pornographic films and Category:Transsexual pornographic film actors. Now, here is what actually is a reasonable exclusion I may agree to: temporarily-awarded categories. Perhaps PORNBIO#1 could be renamed to "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in categories that are scene-related, ensemble, or less than # years old are excluded from consideration." I think five is good enough, but I know many won't agree to that. 10 years, I think, would be the highest possible number that can be considered reasonable so that entire ceremonies, like Hot d'Or, aren't entirely left out of PORNBIO. The Hot d'Or awards appear to have only three 10-year+ categories anyways (Best European Starlet, Best European Actress, Best European Actor), so a 10-year minimum is enough to reduce the number of articles that meet PORNBIO. But, this isn't the place to discuss this. At the moment, Veracruz passes PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply All of our articles must comply with our core content policy Verifiability which requires that we "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The claim that she won this award is referenced only to XBIZ, a PR outlet which is neither a third party source nor does it have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Therefore, the article does not comply with a core content policy which overrides any interpretation based on PORNBIO. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply if this results in delete, a change to the new PORNBIO proposal will not change the criteria under which this is deleted. Pertaining to genre specific awards, PORNBIO states, "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or being a member of an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent". None of these appear to apply to the subject of this article, and none of these are under discussion, and none of these have been reported in "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also, I am not sure this is the proper venue for discussing changes and nuances to PORNBIO - there is an RFC pertaining to this currently underway here - if you're not aware. I think Rebecca should close their eyes and take some deep breaths so that they can focus on the topic under discussion here. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: even if the award was accepted as "significant and well known" (of which I'm not convinced), the SNG does not trump GNG: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." No such sources are present in the article. A BLP with only one award entry and no other content does not add value to the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Rebecca1990 is being deliberately deceptive here. They know full well that the "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" award is in no way equivalent to a "Lesbian Performer of the Year" award. Of the thirteen winners/nominees for this award, seven have performed regularly/frequently with men; a similar proportion holds for the nominees without articles. A more accurate name for the award might be "Best Performer in Girl/Girl Scenes", since the award is not limited to performers who only have recorded sex with other women. The fact that the awarding organization may be homophobic in its refusal to recognize male-male performers hardly justifies the insinuation of bias against editors who do not find this particular category significant. Rebecca1990 has made similar accusations of bias/racism in the past, which were condemned as appalling bad faith by a number of admins.[1] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sincerely doubt that a company that also gives awards to transsexual performers is homophobic; and that other AfD has nothing to do with this one, as each actress won different awards. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding to homophobia: There have actually been GayVN Awards in the past evolving from homosexual male categories of earlier AVN Awards. They ceased in 2010 after more than 20 years maybe because only a few people might have cared about those Awards. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per rebecca1990. Pwolit iets (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Erpert. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     21:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The XBIZ "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" Award is a relatively new & likely minor niche award category at the XBIZ Awards, which are one of the most "well-known industry award" ceremonies in the adult film industry and whose "award nominations are submitted by clients, and the winners are voted for by XBIZ staff, industry colleagues and participating organizations" (emphasis mine - from the XBIZ Award Wikipedia article). Over these many years at AfD, I've yet to see any evidence that the XBIZ Awards are, in fact, controlled by its "clients" only. I've also yet to see any evidence that XBIZ has no "reputation for accuracy and fact checking." Guy1890 (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DEL8 as lacking notability. Even accepting that the subject's awards satisfy PORNBIO, the coverage is much too thin to find notability. The SNGs and sub-guidelines, including PORNBIO, are for determining notability in debatable cases where there is some meaningful coverage, but it's unclear whether or not that coverage meets GNG; they should not be used to find notability where it is plainly lacking. See WP:BIO § Additional criteria ("[M]eeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included."); NRVE; cf. WHYN. The closest thing to a qualifying source is the Fleshbot piece,[2] but a single brief interview is not nearly enough, and I have grave doubts about Fleshbot's independence.[1] Rebbing 04:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Fleshbot's "customers—porn sites—are very, very different from the brand advertisers who supply the money to all the other Gawker Media properties." Felix Salmon, Gawker Media Jettisons Its Porn Blog, Reuters (Feb. 17, 2012), archived at Archive.is.
  2. ^ Holly Kingstown, Twenty Questions with Porn Star Vanessa Veracruz, Fleshbot (June 29, 2015), archived at Archive.is
  • Comment -- I still don't see how the subject has met GNG by "receiving significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article says virtually nothing about the subject, and the sources in the article are not even close to enough to develop a reliable, balanced biography of a living person. No new sources have been presented at the AfD either. This is essentially a WP:DIRECTORY listing, and nothing else. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essentially per Cullen's argument above. There is certainly no coverage in significant, reliable sources. As I understand the linked guideline, PORNBIO only establishes a presumption of notability: if we cannot satisfy WP:V, then we set aside the guideline.Vanamonde (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 15:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the subject's award "AVN Award for All-Girl Performer of the Year" was deleted at AfD on Sept 12, confirming that the award is not significant and well known; pls see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVN Award for All-Girl Performer of the Year. Given that the article contains no meaningful bio information, the article should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The deletion of the award does mean nothing, except that lazy authors were not able to write a better article. (If someone asks: I can't as I am not a native speaker and at the most am able to write in a discussion but not encyclopedic articles in English.) Many awards never had an article, which cannot produce a direct conclusion on their meaning. The deletion of a failed article and keep users who didn't even try to search for award sources prove nothing, especially when the admin actually did nothing else then counting very few random votes (4:2). On the other hand we have an actress, distinguished as the best female homosexual (Girl-Girl) performer of all others. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion of the award article came from a lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The article didn't have them and none were presented in the debate. No amount of editing will overcome a lack of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 21 September 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/Vanessa_Veracruz&oldid=1144316619"