Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deauxma (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Taking into account the attempts to recreate this article under sligtly different orthography, it will also be salted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deauxma

edit
AfDs for this article:
Deauxma (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)

A pornographic actress whose notability is contested. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 September 10, a request to recreate this article, originally deleted in 2006 and protected since 2007, turned into a full-fledged sourcing / notability debate but did not result in a consensus. Because content decisions are to be made via AfD, I'm exercising my DRV closer's discretion to refer the article (in the form of the draft proposed for recreation) to AfD for a decision about the sourcing / notability issue. This being a procedural nomination, I myself express no opinion about that issue.  Sandstein  12:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO, without multiple nominations for well-known/significant awards. Fails the GNG, because there are no reliable sources for biographical content -- all the references, beyond databases and laundry lists, are either promotional pages or press releases. Fails BLP requirements, as an article concerning a living person without reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deauxma passes WP:PORNBIO because she has been nominated for three "well-known and significant industry awards" by AVN and XBIZ and none of them are for "scene-related and ensemble categories". Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nominations. I can find no consensus that "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" is not a significant industry award category, so even without the other references (which are reliable), she still passes WP:PORNBIO. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 18:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per what was said in the DRV. Industry-internal awards – and much more so mere nominations for them – are "significant" only if and insofar their significance is reflected in coverage by other, reliable, independent (i.e. non-industry-internal) sources. Show me the coverage of the "MILF/Cougar..." nomination process in independent media; then and only then can we talk about notability. (Ceterum censeo WP:PORNBIO has lacked consensus for years and has for that reason long ceased to be a valid guideline.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysis of the currently-cited sources:
    1. Internet Adult Film Database: not a reliable source. WP:BIO#Notes #6 summarizes the many previous discussions on this better than I can.
    2. Southern Charms Happenings, 3. Orgasm News, 4. Barelist: all interviews with minimal analysis. Primary.
    5. AVN, 6. AVN, 8. XBIZ, 9. AVN, 10. XBIZ: A mix of press releases and minimally-edited reprints of press releases (they didn't even fix the typos!). Not independent.
    7. 2013 XBIZ award nominations. Ten nominations for her category; 311 total nominations in performer categories by my count.
    11. Deauxmalive.com: Article subject's website. Not independent.
    12. 2011 AVN award nominations via archive.org. Fifteen nominations for her category; 305 total nominations in performer categories by my count.
    13. 2013 AVN award nominations via archive.org. Fifteen nominations for her category; 208 total nominations in performer categories by my count.
    So the sum total of our independent, reliable, secondary sources is "2013 NOMINEES... Best Actress - All-Girl Release... Deauxma, Road Queen 22 (Girlfriends Films)"; "2011 Nominations for the 2011 AVN Awards... MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year... Deauxme"; and "2013 NOMINATIONS... MILF/COUGAR PERFORMER OF THE YEAR... DEAUXMA". Even if one accepts WP:PORNBIO at face value and argues that these three nominations amidst 824! others are for "well-known and significant award[s]" despite their total absence of secondary coverage, there's simply not enough material here to write a neutral and verifiable biography. Delete. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are you saying that she would have to be nominated for 824 awards to be considered notable? Now that it has become clearer that WP:PORNBIO is still a valid guideline (if it weren't, it would be redlinked), it seems like now the deletion rationale is, "Oh, but you know what? These sources aren't independent because...um...um..." followed by something really longwinded. Yes, the sources may not be independent...to you. If y'all really have a problem with PORNBIO, don't clog up an AfD; there's a pretty solid discussion going on here about that. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 18:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it were a valid guideline, people who pass it would be likely to be notable, as with all the other WP:BIO additional criteria. In this case, as in so many others, it fails.

      You've got 20 edits to the DRV and AFD for this article totalling 9339 bytes so far and have yet to advance a sound, policy- or source-based reason for keeping this article. Accusations of longwindedness are laughably off-base. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Being in porn and having a twin sister just isn't enough. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Given that the general Wikipedia:Notability guideline states at the very top that it is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, I do not see how meeting the subject-specific guideline WP:PORNBIO to the general notability guideline would provide such a guarantee. There needs to be enough valid content to fill a written account of that person's life in an article about the person to have the topic handled as a separate, stand-alone page. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). Being nominated or winning an award, making unique contributions, staring, being a member of a Hall of Fame as listed at WP:PORNBIO - these merely require editors to presume that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, if the closer finds that consensus is that Deauxma meets criteria 1 or 2 at WP:PORNBIO, then the topic should be handled as a separate, stand-alone page if editors at AfD cannot show that the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Proving a negative is difficult. I searched an online database of print published source material and did not find enough source material for a stand alone article. However, I do not think that, by itself, overcomes the presumption that arises from meeting WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2. There also is non-electronic databases and source material such as AVN (magazine), Alternative newspaper, etc.). This topic is more likely to receive offline reliable source coverage than online reliable source coverage. If an editor at AfD indicates that they search the topic in non-electronic sources (offline sources) and did not find enough source material to justify a stand-alone article, that would be significant and help prove the negative - to overcome the WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2 presumption that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 74.74.150.139's review above also is significant. What it says is that those who have an interest in this topic and a motivation to search for reliable source material in offline sources were not able to find enough offline source material to justify a stand-alone article on the topic. The close can take that into account. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your analysis of policy is completely about face. V is a policy and sits over N/GNG/PORNBIO. It makes clear that the responsibility is on the person who wants to include material to find the sources. [1]. On that basis, if credible searches have been made for reliable sources and none are found then the onus is then on the keep to demonstrate then not the delete side to show they are nonexistant. Spartaz Humbug! 05:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, lets put the whole "press releases" debate about the sources used in Deauxma's article to rest. While AVN doesn't appear to specify when an article is news and when it is a press release, XBIZ does. For example, take a look at these two articles from XBIZ: [2] and [3]. These two articles are press releases, it says "Company Press" right under the title. Now, the two XBIZ sources in Deauxma's article: [4] and [5] both say "XBIZ News Report" under the title. These aren't press releases, they are clearly news reports. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The press releases they were churned from can be seen here and here respectively. If these "news reports" were posted at Wikipedia, we'd speedy them as copyvios without a second thought. Moving the paragraphs around, changing a few words, and slapping "News Report" on the top doesn't transform a press release into a secondary source. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those two articles you listed aren't press releases. AAN and AIPdaily are also news websites like AVN and XBIZ. The XBIZ articles didn't originate from the ones you mentioned, in fact, this XBIZ article was posted online before this one (look at the dates), which you claim is the original "press release". Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Should anyone have any doubts about what's going on here, all they need to do is examine the second item referred to by the IP, the AIPdaily link, which Rebecca1990 identifies as a "news website." The item is labeled as "PRESS RELEASES" in highlighted text near the top of the page, and again in the pathname just above the headline. The claim that it is not a press release would not be made by an honest, competent editor. Perhaps it might be made by a paid publicist; I've seen worse behavior by such flacks here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The article by AIPdaily was published a day after the article from XBIZ. If it were a non-pornographic news website's article which got published somewhere else and labelled as a press release, I'm sure you wouldn't disregard the original because of this. Now, the original XBIZ news report, the one I used as a source in Deauxma's article, is not a press release, it is a news report. I already explained all this. And no, I am not a publicist, if I was, why would I create and edit articles for porn stars like Angel (pornographic actress), who retired a very long time ago? I honestly have no idea what I have done to give you that impression. I proposed the recreation of Deauxma's article simply because she meets the PORNBIO guideline. I would like to know why you're so passionate about keeping this article deleted? And I'm still curious about what happened here. User:Cbrown1023 was the one who deleted and salted Deauxma and I contacted him because the instructions at WP:DRV say to "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review." You replied to me on Cbrown1023's talk page. Why? How did you even find out I had contacted Cbrown1023? Are you wikihounding me? Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • What rubbish. I asked an admin not to unilaterally reverse the consensus outcome of an AFD I initiated. That's not "wikihounding" by any stretch of the imagination. As for the press release under discussion, it began as standard promotional material on the webhost's page a week before it was recycled by XBIZ [6]; minor editing and sticking a byline on it doesn't make it reliable journalism -- especially when the byline belongs to an employee of a PR business! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • That doesn't answer my question. How did you find out I had contacted Cbrown1023? I can't think of any other explanation besides wikihounding since you're not supposed to receive notifications of posts on other user talk pages. It seems like you were either wikihounding me or Cbrown1023. And if you still want to waste your time disputing the sources in Deauxma's article then go ahead, that still doesn't change the fact that she passes PORNBIO based on her award nominations alone since all three of them are "well-known and significant industry awards". Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those two press releases I listed are, in fact, press releases, and anyone who can't recognize them as such has no business editing biographies of living people. (And no, it's not particularly significant that XBIZ posted their minimally-edited version a day before AIPDaily posted their unedited one.) 74.74.150.139 (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless consensus finds XBIZ, the publisher of the work, or the creator of the work, John Sanford[7] or Nelson Ayala[8], not reliable sources, I think you will need much more to declare press release through churnalism. The bigger issue is the "coverage" term in the GNG coverage requirement. The requirement is "address the subject directly." For a biography article on Deauxma, that means addressing the person Deauxma directly. The news article Road Queen does not address the person Deauxma directly. Rather, that source describes the drifter character of the Road Queen movie using elements contributed by the writer of Road Queen, not those contributed by the person Deauxma herself. That news sources does not even identify the person Deauxma as being in the cast, so I would say that first news story counts towards a character article on the character Deauxma, but not GNG count towards a biography article on the person Deauxma. The second news story is a little better. In MILF, you can find elements of the person Deauxma's life that can be used in the Wikipedia biography article - change website, her age, began in the adult industry in 2004 and, as of October 2012, performed in greater than 90 adult productions. I don't think that amounts to "in detail" per the GNG Significant coverage requirement, but it definitely is biographical information usable in a Wikipedia article on the topic. Also, the WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2 presumption of meeting GNG still is there. -- Jreferee (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We are beginning to get sidetracked from this discussion just like in the DRV. Remember, we are here to discuss if Deauxma passes WP:PORNBIO, not WP:GNG. Pornographic actors aren't required to pass GNG in order to have a WP article. For example, Loona Luxx, Mike Adriano, Celeste Star, and Capri Anderson all survived in recent AfD's. They all pass PORNBIO solely based on their awards and nominations and if Deauxma doesn't meet GNG, then neither do they since they all have less news coverage than her. Why is Deauxma's article so controversial and why should she be any different from these four porn actors? Is it simply because her article got salted? If that's the reason why then let me remind you again that it's been 6-7 years since then and this AfD no longer applies today. Now back to the topic of this discussion, does Deauxma pass PORNBIO? Why or why not? Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WHERE ARE THE THIRD PARTY RELIABLE SOURCES? THERE ARE NONE. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not applied in a vacuum. Rather, they are applied collectively and with a goal of applying them consistently from one topic to the next. The subject-specific guidelines are specific notability guidelines to the general Wikipedia:Notability. Pornographic actors and models guideline is a sub-guideline to the Entertainers sub-guideline, which is subject to the general requirements listed at the top of Wikipedia:Notability (people), which itself is a sub-guideline to Wikipedia:Notability, which itself is subject to content policies, which are subject to Wikipedia:Five pillars. Meeting PORNBIO or establishing that the topic is "notable" by itself is not enough to say that the topic will be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles need written prose that summarizes reliable source material. Passing PORNBIO by winning an industry award is not source material that can be used to write a biography on Deauxma. However, winning an industry award is evidence that that writers have or are going to write about Deauxma's life. The other articles passing AfD falls under WP:WAX. Wikipedia is based on consensus. AfD closers take into account strength of argument provided by those posting in an AfD discussion - how those in a discussion use policy/guidelines in what they post to support their position. Even when an editor does not cite to any policies or guidelines or intermix a cited policy/guideline with their reasons for their position, the closer still needs to apply policies and guidelines consistently to what that person posts. Because the same editors do not participate in each AfD discussion, consensus for one topic may be different from consensus for another topic. -- Jreferee (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She passes PORNBIO. Whether you like the guideline or not, it exist, and the rules of notability are quite clear. Dream Focus 09:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google About 5,830,000 results, Results xbiz.com.--Johnsmith877 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this material. I don't find XBiz or AVN to be reliable sources, and the others are primary.—S Marshall T/C 00:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They are reliable sources listing their own awards, just as any official website for a notable award would be considered reliable. Dream Focus 00:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the AVN and XBIZ nominations are too weak a standard for Wikipedia. They'd make about 600 porn bios notable every year (though I'm sure some get nominated repeatedly). That's probably a large percentage of the entire North American porn industry. Looking at the last guideline discussion on this issue, there is no consensus that nominations are sufficient for Wikipedia notability. The only reason why a no-consensus wording is in the guideline is the "preemptive strike" by the porn wikifans who sneaked the wording into the guideline and manged to get the famous "no consensus to remove" thereafter. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • AVN and XBIZ are "well-known and significant industry awards" and having several award categories and several nominees per category does not degrade their value. Nominations without wins are enough to determine notability according to WP:PORNBIO and a discussion with no consensus does not override the established guidelines. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this person does not meet the general notability guide. Press releases and trifling porn nominations, not even wins, don't count. WP:PORNBIO is for all intents and purposes ignored, it cannot be a used and abused safety net to catch otherwise unremarkable and non-notable porn figures. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You disagreeing with a subject specific guideline, doesn't mean you can ignore it. Dream Focus 10:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, I can. The project is being used for free advertising for non-notable porn starlets; we're not Facebook, nor are we a casting directory for the porn industry. So if we have to set aside a half-witted sub/single-notability guide because it tries to backdoor bios on no other basis than multiple nominations, than that is what I believe we must do. These people do not meet WP:N, and WP:PORNBIO cannot be used as a safety net for non-notable actors. Tarc (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When an SNG is in conflict with the GNG then we have to look at wider community expectations to decide which one has primacy. On that basis the requirement to source biographies is paramount across the project and enshrined in BLP. V another widely accepte4d policy requires material to be sourced to reliable sources. In depth coverage in reliable secondary sources is a cornerstone of our project and has overwhelming support. PORNBIO is.. well.. not widely supported outside those editors arguing to keep it and at variance with the requirement that SNGs are supposed to point towards criteria where sources are likely to exist. I do not find either AVN or XBIZ reliable sources as they are too prone to reprint press handouts and fact checking is woeful. On that basis I cannot argue to retain this content on the basis of PORNBIO AVN nominations when the sourcing is so woeful and BLP/V/GNG expectations are so clearly not met. Spartaz Humbug! 05:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't ignore a subject specific guideline just because you don't like it. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." And to the right is of course the subject specific notability guideline for people, which includes porn stars. The subject specific guidelines wouldn't exist if you had to meet the general notability guidelines as well. Dream Focus 10:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes you can, by consensus. Where NGs clash a discussion can decide which way to go - especially when one NG is weakly accepted and another is widely accepted as our inclusion standard. I'd say the outcome of this discussion is pretty clear on that point. What you are arguing for is that non-notable individuals where there are demonstratively no reliable sources of any substance should have an article based on aa SNG that is widely deprecated and at odds with the overall inclusion standard. And before you accuse me of hypocrisy, I have been consistent in the position for years and have overturned numerous deletions when closing DRVs on the basis that NFOOTY cannot exclude subjects who pass the GNG. You are welcome to disagree but don't state something as a fact that is demonstratively not a fact and subject to consensus Spartaz Humbug! 10:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you believe you can ignore the Notability guidelines? And what is this "weakly accepted" or "widely accepted" nonsense? They are both included in the Notability guidelines. And it is not widely deprecated, that doesn't make any sense at all. If you don't like a guideline, then start a RFC to eliminate it. All past times someone has done that, consensus has been to keep it. Dream Focus 10:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe that when two guidelines are in tension with each other its permissible for a discussion to take a view on which guideline is closest to community expectation and reach a consensus based on that. Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth but clearly this is a much more nuanced issue then the binary choice you are trying to force through. There was an RFC, the clear conclusion was that PORNBIO was defective but there wasn't the required super-consensus to just abolish it but no-one could agree on what it should be replaced by. That's fairly good evidence that its not something that has wide community consensus. Unlike the GNG for example which has become the defacto standard inclusion threshold that a vast majority of editors agree with. Spartaz Humbug! 15:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wouldn't every single subject specific guideline then be "in tension with each other" since the reason we have subject specific guidelines is because things can be notable without passing the general notability guidelines? You seem to just be looking for an excuse to ignore a guideline you don't like. Dream Focus 15:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:PORNBIO is part of WP:BIO which describes as "it's in a nutshell" - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a stand alone list article. All biographies of living individuals must comply with the policy on biographies of living individuals, being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality." - I'm not sure why you think that means things can be notable without meeting the GNG when that is really a restating of the GNG. The additional criteria which is where PORNBIO is under has a heading which indicates it's status. The additional criteria are guides as to if people are likely to meet the basic criteria - which is essentially the GNG, not a replacement for it. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • The nutshell is irrelevant. Read the actual article. It list the basic criteria of the GNG and then in the "Additional criteria" section it reads "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards". Same thing said in WP:NOTABILITY. You are notable if you meet either the GNG or the subject specific guidelines. Its always been this way. Dream Focus 18:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes. "Likely to be". Not "are". You are notable if you meet the GNG. You are likely to be if you meet one of the additional criteria. (And for most of the additional criteria, that's even accurate.) 74.74.150.139 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • So you think the in a nutshell is irrelevant - no, understanding the full context in which things are set out is or course significant in understanding the meaning. You can't just cherry pick. However as I said - "the additional criteria are guides as to if people are likely to meet the basic criteria", as it says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards". Also helpful if you read into the next sentence of that section "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." --86.5.93.42 (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hullaballoo was the first to iVote in this AfD and clearly set out what needs to be discussed. There is no process basis to claim that "if a topic meets WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2, then the topic will be treated in a stand alone article." Wikipedia:Notability guidelines are not independent from each other. Rather Sub-Sub-subject-specific guideline WP:PORNBIO is read in view of WP:GNG, which literally has received review and/or revision from many Wikipedians. Guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability are read in view of content policies, such as WP:V, which themselves are subject to Wikipedia:Five pillars. Fails WP:PORNBIO - Regarding WP:PORNBIO, there is no showing in this AfD discussion that the awards for which she was nominated -- AVN MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year, AVN MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year, or XBIZ Best Actress - All-Girl Release -- are "well-known and significant industry awards." For example, none of the awards are listed at Category:Pornographic film awards. If they were "well-known and significant", there would be evidence that they meet WP:GNG and none of that evidence has been brought forth in this AfD. Fails WP:N - even of WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2 were met, that only creates a presumption that the topic has GNG received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I searched an online database of print published source material and did not find enough source material for a stand alone article. It is clear that some of the participants in this AfD discussion are familiar with pornographic reliable sources, but no one in this discussion has identified any offline source where such significant coverage could possibly reside. So, even if WP:PORNBIO were met, the GNG presumption that it brings up has been disproved, meaning that there is not enough source material for a stand-alone article. BLP Fictional/real character - As S Marshall noted at the DRV,[9] Deauxma is both a fictional character and a real person. This article focuses on the fictional/stage character (Deauxma is not listed in the film cast) whereas this article provides biographical information for the person Deauxma. We do not even know Deauxma's real name or birth date. She likely controls her celebrity image to maintain a fictional image and hide real life elements to keep her fans interested. Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written with regard for the subject's privacy. Given the scant amount of information available on the real person Deauxma and how she projects the fictional character Deauxma, it is not clear that having a biography on Deauxma could be written in regard for the subject's privacy. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. You don't seem to understand the difference between award ceremonies and award categories. Of course "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" and "Best Actress - All-Girl Release" aren't listed at Category:Pornographic film awards. I think what you meant to say was that "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" and "Best Actress - All-Girl Release" don't have articles of their own like AVN Best New Starlet Award and AVN Female Performer of the Year Award do. Is that what you were trying to say? Because if that's the case then the male equivalent of these awards, the AVN Awards for "Best Male Newcomer" and "Male Performer of the Year" aren't "well-known and significant industry awards" either since they don't have WP articles? Are the only pornographic actors notable enough for a WP article females who have been nominated multiple times for "Best New Starlet" and "Female Performer of the Year"? I have participated in many WP:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion AfD's and consensus generally demonstrates that all award categories for ceremonies listed here are "well-known and significant industry awards" with the only exception being "scene-related and ensemble categories". The Urban X Awards are apparently excluded too according to these AfD's for Sara Jay, Cherokee D'Ass, and Pinky, although it seems to me that this is just another attempt by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz to degrade the value of an adult industry award. But, the AVN and XBIZ awards are both well-known and significant, no doubt about it and these were the awards Deauxma was nominated for.
    • 2. The whole "fictional character" argument S Marshall started at the DRV is just silly. Like Erpert said, Deauxma and all other porn stars are real people working under stage names, not fictional characters. And even if they were fictional characters, how is that a valid argument for deleting an article? We wouldn't delete the WP articles for Peter Griffin and Mickey Mouse because they are fictional characters, would we?
    • 3. The whole "real name" argument is also silly and it was already addressed in the DRV. First of all, knowing her real name does not increase her notability, secondly, it cannot be included on WP if it hasn't been published by a reliable source, and I don't think that IMDb, Deauxma's Porn Wikileaks article, or trademark information for the stage name "Deauxma" are reliable sources for her real name.
    • 4. Whether you all like it or not, Deauxma passes WP:PORNBIO, which is an established guideline on WP, and making invalid arguments based on faulty reasoning to draw people's attention away from WP:PORNBIO and towards WP:GNG won't make the guideline disappear. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • To determine whether an award is "well-known and significant" under WP:PORNBIO, there needs to be evidence that the award has received significant coverage in reliable sources (see WP:GNG) to at least establish the "well-known" requirement of WP:PORNBIO. The "significant" portion of "well-known and significant" would also need to meet additional criteria to be satisfied, because the criteria is "well-known and significant". That applies to each Urban X Award as well. WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS instructs AfD closers to look at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). The view that the "Urban X" award does or does not demonstrate notability is a personal opinion (not an argument) that does not appear in a guideline and also bypasses the WP:PORNBIO guideline. Some of the Urban X Awards may have received significant coverage in reliable sources, so those could fall under "well-known and significant" per WP:PORNBIO if such evidence is presented at an AfD. An award shows things like fame, importance, or popularity, but does not directly show that there is reliable source material available from which to write the Wikipedia article - which is what really matters when it comes to determining whether a topic should be treated in a stand-alone article. If there is not enough reliable source material to write a Wikipedia article, then how are contributors supposed to write the article and meet WP:V. As for fictional character, I think you are correct. Fictional character does not fit. Pee-wee Herman and Paul Reubens show a fictional character/real person connection covered in two separate articles. Stage names such as Dwayne Johnson and The Rock (actor) (a redirect) seems a better fit. The stage name article notes that some performers use a stage name in order to retain anonymity, which accounts for the little information available on her real name and birth date (two significant biography elements). Deauxma being a stage name also fits with WP:STAGENAME. I searched for source material under Deauxma's real name, but did not see any thing that indicated the information was about Deauxma. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Aside from wondering why this discussion has been open for almost two weeks when it hasn't even been relisted, I find it very interesting that many of the users !voting--no, urging "delete" are IPs. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 06:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • More personalisation and aspertions Erpert. Bravo. By the way your calender needs a recheck. This has been open 10 days not 2 weeks and there are currently 24 open AFDs from 19th that need closing and given the certainty that you are going to be difficult over any close that you don't agree with I suspect that this one is right at the end of the queue. Spartaz Humbug! 09:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Spartaz, have you learned nothing? You came back from a wikibreak only to continue the same behavior. And as I said to another editor, baiting doesn't work on me. I suggest you stop clogging up AfDs with comments like this and instead focus on the actual subject of the discussion. (Also, if you were paying attention, I clearly said "almost two weeks".) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 07:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Erpert, stop casting aspersions on editors whose positions you disagree with. You've been warned about this, over and over, by multiple editors, going back nearly two years [11], and your refusal to stop these NPA/CIVIL/AGF violations is disruptive. If you didn't notice, you gained no community support for your bogus claims of harassment in the ANI discussion you cite. [12] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • HW, give it a rest already. If you ban me from your talk page, you don't in turn get to wikihound me in other venues (also, typing in all bold text doesn't do much to prove your point). And for the last time, stop bringing up that old AfD (I hadn't even thought about that topic before you brought it up). BTW, you know full well that claiming I gained no community support from the AN report is completely false (because among other things, it was eventually spun off by an uninvolved editor, now, wasn't it?). Now, if we can actually focus back on Deauxma... Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 20:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Phony accusations of wikihounding are uncivil and disruptive. You don't get to decide who can respond to your comments. except on your own talk page. As for that supposed community support you received, note that the editor who spun out the new topic stated This request was opened with conclusory phrases such as: harassment, being harassed, bad-faith, he doesn't like, apparent bias, attacking me, accusing me, people who don’t like, his real bias, berate me. Numerous conclusions are being made about Spartaz without any supporting consensus and there is no effort to seek consensus on any of these personal conclusions. AN is then asked to take action based on these personal conclusions. This thread is set up in a way that will not lead to a consensus regarding the basis for the request, but will bring in replies. When replied come into this thread, they are used as opportunity to continue leveling unsupported accusations. That's not what a reasonable person would describe as "support". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • So anyone that disagrees with you is being disruptive? Got it. Look, this isn't Wolfowitzipedia, so people are going to have discussions that you might not necessarily agree with. It seems like the fact that I won't give in to a battle is bothering you more, so you just keep pushing. I'm going to see if an uninvolved admin can close this discussion because it has gone way off topic. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 16:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, Erpert. Not everyone who disagrees with me. But you've been cited repeatedly, by multiple editors, for disruptive badgering and personalizing discussions, over nearly two years. And your response is to make phony accusations against the editors involved, which are uniformly rejected by the broader community. Bringing multiple phony complaints against the admin who rejected you arguments in DRVs was appalling behavior that should have been sanctioned. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by many IPs you mean 2, this one at least who commented at the DRV regarding the same points (and comments on DRVs on various subjects), then I guess your definition of interesting differs to mine. I would say it's rather more interesting that you continue resort to vague insinuations rather than things of substance. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:PORNBIO might be the single most stringent subject notability guideline there is; it goes way beyond GNG. So when a subject passes it, I don't think there can seriously be doubt that notability has been met. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absurd. PORNBIO is the least stringent subject notability guideline. It purports to paint as notable people who
      • have been nominated or won awards that are well-known or significant only within their industry, as opposed to well-known or significant in general as is required in all other SNGs that put any weight on awards at all (compare specifically WP:ANYBIO;
      • have inherited notability solely by virtue of appearing in a single "iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" (compare WP:NACTOR);
      • have merely been featured in mainstream media, without the usual requirements of being multiple, reliable, secondary, in-depth, or independent of the subject (compare WP:BASIC).
    • Even if she meets PORNBIO, or WP:NACTOR, or WP:NASTRO for that matter, all that SNGs even claim to show is a likelihood of notability. They say so right on their guideline pages. People have been trying to get a Wikipedia page for this actress in particular since mid-2006, and in all that time have been not been able to produce EVEN ONE in-depth independent secondary source of the sort that actually shows notability. The only reasonable conclusion is that there are none. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete — Notability guidelines are just that - guidelines. A subject or topic that meets a particular notability guideline IS NOT guaranteed a stand-alone Wikipedia article. One of the primary functions of the AfD process is to determine if a subject, which is "presumed to be notable" (by virtue of meeting an SNG) is actually notable. Consensus at an AfD can and does override notability guidelines, especially when the article is not or cannot be in compliance with actual policy like BLP or V. When the presumption of notability from the guideline conflicts with the requirement to have a neutral, well-sourced, well-written article, then you CAN and DO "just ignore" the guideline. Not because you don't like it, but because meeting a notability guideline is NOT A GUARANTEE that the subject gets an article. Regarding this specific article, my opinion after having read the article and checked the sources, is that this person is not sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, WP:PORNBIO be damned, because the sources are not sufficient to write a neutral, truly verifiable article about this living person. —Darkwind (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment: I was originally here because I was going to try to close this discussion, but realized I would rather boil my head in acid than go through the eventual return to DRV this is almost certainly going to see. Perhaps my !vote was a bit strongly worded, but that's largely due to frustration at people assuming that passing a notability guideline was an engraved invitation or bullet-proof shield to having a Wikipedia article -- completely ignoring the sentence at the top of "Additional criteria" on WP:BIO: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (emphasis mine) —Darkwind (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2013 (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/Deauxma_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1078418110"