Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Ivy (2nd 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Ivy

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, as nominations in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration. Also fails WP:GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with, at best, one individual award nomination. Fails GNG with no substantial reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are literally countless articles about pornstars on WP, some have even less reliable sourced biographical content and fewer award nominations. Yet, no one attempt to delete those articles. It would be better to expand this article, to add more reliable bio content instead to delete it. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suitable stub article that meets WP:PORNBIO. After the last AFd of two years ago and the dismantling of of PORNBIO, it is now generally accepted that peer and genre recognition for contributions to group porn scenes are to be ignored... fine... but the article still shows multiple nominations for individual actions over multiple years. Until it is further decommissioned, the applicable guideline is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see 4 scene-related nominations and a "Best Tease Performance" nomination. Scene-related awards don't count for PORNBIO, leaving a single individual nomination. (Even that is a stretch.) PORNBIO fail. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but despite the confusing verbiage of that re-written guideline, it's not "scenes" we are supposed to ignore, as every actor (mainstream or genre) may receive peer recognition for whatever action they do in their "scenes"... and without "scenes" we do not have films of any type or genre. It is pornography GROUP activities that it was decided we ignore. So yes, I see the 2 nominations for "Best All-Girl Group Sex Scene", which as a GROUP activity we are to ignore, 1 for "Best Oral Sex Scene" which is an indicator of an individual's, specific action being singled out for recognition, 1 for "Best Tease Performance", which is another individual action being singled out for recognition, and 1 for "Best POV Sex Scene", which needs clarification... as in films "POV" means point of view... and I have no idea if the award was for her POV, the recipient's POV, or the camera's POV. With the last being undefined, we still have the two nominations for individual's actions. PORNBIO is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Schmidt analysis is utter nonsense, and ignores the clear and explicit consensus reached in extensive discussion on the talkpage for PORNBIO last year. The original proposed text on this point (from Morbidthoughts) read "Scene-related award categories are disqualified from consideration"; the language was then made even more restrictive, not less restrictive, by adding language excluding ensemble ~~scenes~~ awards as well. The plain-language reading, excluding all scene awards and nominations, has been followed uniformly in porn performer AFDs since that time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis made per application of established policy and guidelines in seeking to reach a consensus HERE, does not equate to the "nonsense" of insisting that a guideline deconstructed by a handful has the same weight as does overarching policy and guideline built by a majority. What improves the project, improves the project. Espousing that it does not, does not itself refute that genre recognition by ones peers is not meaningless. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is "deconstructing" the guideline text here, which is plain as day: Nominations and awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration. There's no "overarching policy and guideline" that's involved, and your failure to cite such standard is just evidence that you're talking through your hat. The guideline text is quite clear on this point. It was established by well-more-than-a-majority consensus last year and has been followed without dissension since then. Your denial of the plain meaning of the simple text and your disrespect for clearly established consensus is inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is "plain as day" is that the pornbio guideline "now" is not what it was when first created through the then-consensus, nor now as it was even three years ago... and doubtless it will be far different in another few years as consensus for additional changes and modifications takes effect to either loosen its now exclusionary effects or tighten them. I will remain polite despite your goading, and not turn this discussion into a battlefield as I recognize and history shows that consensus can and often does change. Instead of arguing interpretations at every AFD, why not dedicate efforts to getting all pornographic material removed from Wikipedia entirely and all at once instead of piecemeal. Protecting minors from being exposed to adult content material would seem a laudable and decent goal. Perhaps we could create a new consensus for speedy removal of all porn-related topics though an WP:RFC that could conclude that as far as porn topics are concerned, the overarching policies of WP:V and WP:NOTCENSORED, and guidelines WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO may not be used to assert or show an asserted notability? We could use the RFC to formulate an addition to WP:NOT, modifying NOTCENSORED to disinclude porn and creating WP:NOTPORN: Wikipedia is NOT a collection of pornography-related topics. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:23, 8 March 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.