Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee D'Ass (3rd 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. Consensus seems to be that the Urban X Award for Biggest Ass in Porn is not sufficient for demonstrating notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee D'Ass

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable porn actress. References are mostly primary in nature or PR items. Someone needs to chime in concerning the importance of the Urban X award. Vanity page. reddogsix (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This actress has been deleted from Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee D'Ass and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee D' Ass (2nd nomination). The Urban X Award win since the last deletion may prevent a G4 speedy, but it doesn't establish notability per WP:PORNBIO • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no specific criteria given in WP:PORNBIO for what is a well-known and significant industry award, however the Urban X Award (which the subject has won a category in) has received significant press coverage in AVN and XBIZ. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well-established consensus, demonstrated in multiple AFD discussions, that Urban X/Urban Spice awards do not contribute to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's exactly zero evidence that I'm aware of to demonstrate that all "Urban X/Urban Spice awards do not contribute to notability" via PORNBIO. As for the specific award in question here ("Biggest Ass in Porn" or its cousin "BBW With The Biggest Ass In Porn"), it would seem to me that this award would not be considered a "significant industry award". Had this performer here received more than one award ("has been nominated for such an award several times") like the AVN "Unsung Starlet of the Year" (and I'm not saying that she hasn't, since I haven't looked extensively), then she would certainly pass PORNBIO. One also might be able to make an argument that this performer "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" via her apparent appearances on both U.S. radio and Australian TV. Guy1890 (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the award ceremony is notable enough to pass WP:GNG then surely it meets Wikipedia's standard of fame and significance. Also there's no benchmark for an award category being more notable than any another. 178.17.66.1 (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I can't see why winning the award wouldn't contribute notability when the Urban X Awards/Urban Spice Awards is notable enough to have an article. There are no standout solo categories either so I would say they're all equally significant here. YousufMiah (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The idea that any award sufficiently notable to have its own article passes the "well-known"/"significant" in ANYBIO and biographical SNGs has been soundly rejected by the community, and was removed by consensus from PORNBIO quite some time ago, and that decision was confirmed in many AFDs and at DRV, in discussions as recent as last month. I have no idea why it's returned to infect the discussion of this article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three noms, one win. Sufficient coverage, meets GNG in this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't consider the XRCO scene and Urban X best ass award nominations to be significant enough to pass PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz & User:Morbidthoughts - Urban X &Urban Spice aren't notable awards. - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No, the Urban X award for biggest ass in porn is not sufficient for automatic inclusion. Not the worst of the always vapid porn bios that I've ever seen, but a GNG failure nonetheless. Carrite (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Guy1890's comments, the appearances on American radio and Australian TV meets the third criteria on PORNBIO of multiple appearances in notable mainstream media. 86.153.72.187 (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks non-trivial reliable source coverage to pass GNG. Also fails PORNBIO criterion #1 with a minor award win and scene-related nominations. Comes up short in PORNBIO criterion #3. Appeared ≠ featured. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suppose it's debatable whether the award win contributes notability or not but the fact remains that her appearances in mainstream media fits the required definition so I'd still say the article should be kept. YousufMiah (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are mistaken, the appearances are just that, she appeared and was not featured. They are primary not secondary sources. reddogsix (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's a matter of opinion and semantics. YousufMiah (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hardly, the definition of primary and secondary is very specific within Wikipedia. You comment about semantics is just an attempt to create a Straw Man. reddogsix (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wasn't talking about the sources, although they aren't all primary. Appearing and featuring are interchangeable synonyms and it's subjective to say that she didn't feature; appearing and featuring could be one of the same. It's a matter of opinion much like calling the article a vanity page without justification. Also, this source which was removed, does support the Rove appearance. YousufMiah (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both forms of mainstream media that the subject has featured/appeared on are notable. The two different types of media appearances are unrelated, in different countries, with a considerable time gap in between each. AVN and TV Tonight sources on the article are both independent and are not primary. There is clearly a difference of opinion on this; however from a holistic point of view the criterion is satisfied. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the secondary sources, including the TV Tonight ref, claimed as supporting the "Rove" appearance even mentioned the subject's name, and the AVN ref is just a presskit piece claiming that a trivial appearance was scheduled; there's no RS-substantiation that it occurred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:29, 16 June 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.