Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Starr (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 July 8. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
| This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 November 4. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. While the argument that PORNBIO is met has not been defeated, this is not a debating society and there is consensus that the article should be deleted having considered the technical PORNBIO pass. There is also concern that the PORNBIO guideline may be too loose, but that is a discussion for elsewhere. As is customary, !votes from unregistered users have been given reduced weight.
I have carefully considered this closure and will not be amending it; feel free to go to DRV if you disagree with it. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Rachel Starr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable porn performer. The article has already been deleted seven times before, but has been recreated since the subject performed in one of 15 scenes recently nominated for the less-than-well-known "Best Three-Way Sex Scene (G/G/B)" award given by AVN, her second such distinction. The article still has no reliable sourcing and no verifiable biographical content; the subject still fails the GNG, as noted in the initial AFD. AVN nominations are handed out profligately -- the current list runs 75 pages -- and no longer constitute a valid proxy for the level of independent coverge that establishes notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete The article doesn't seem to have sources that meet WP:N, I don't think the nominations are significant enough for WP:PORNBIO, and I can't find sources other than press releases. Hobit (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - passes WP PORNBIO with 2 nominations, and she ist really famous, has a lot scenes on all notable Internetsite (Brazzers, Bangbros, Reality Kings). Just look at Brazzers, she is one of the most famous actresses there. --Hixteilchen (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Significant coverage in reliable sources is conspicuously absent. AVN nominations can't establish notability by themselves. Chester Markel (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The GNG is not the sole criteria that may be considered. What IS required is that the awards and nominations set by PORNBIO are properly verifiable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Topic-specific notability guidance is intended as a surrogate for the general notability guideline, to avoid the needless deletion of articles on topics that are notable per the GNG, simply because no one has yet performed the research necessary to identify significant coverage by reliable sources. For instance, if any reliable source establishes that someone was a United States senator serving a single term beginning in 1950, it may reasonably be assumed without further evidence that they are notable because significant coverage will exist, even if finding it requires the use of offline sources such as microfilmed newspapers. However, to the extent that the text of WP:PORNBIO declares notability for people who will probably never meet the GNG, it does not represent a consensus of the community. That's not surprising, since the authorship of WP:PORNBIO disproportionately represents users with an editorial interest in the subject matter, rather than a neutral cross-section of the community. Chester Markel (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting minority viewpoint, but not per "existing" consensus, as the the GNG and SNGs are not mutually exlusionary and are instead intended to be mutually supportive. This is why the GNG is not policy and has failed repeated efforts to make it so... specially as both majority consensus and existing guideline allows that notability may be established without a topic having significant coverage, just so long as long as the notability assertion is verifiable. Verifiability is not required to itself be significant coverage, and notability is not popularity. Of course, your interesting argument seems to assume that one could never find sources speaking toward porn stars... or that repeated and continued coverage of porn stars in porn genre sources does not meet the GNG. However, if you feel it or any SNG might disproportionately represent the wishes of only those users with an editorial interest in the subject matter, hold an RFC to eliminate PORNBIO as a guideline and let's then get all porn stars and porn related articles off of Wikipedia.... and then we can work to remove any SNG whose topic is of interest to the editors who edit those articles. Of course, and while Wikipedia is for the readers and not the editors... censorship begins at home. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I make no assumption "that one could never find sources speaking toward porn stars." It's obviously possible for porn actors/actresses to satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. Jenna Jameson, for instance, clearly does. However, at least as you interpret it, WP:PORNBIO is clearly skewed, since it would confer notability upon each and every person who may have appeared for only two minutes in a one hundred person orgy, if the scene had "won a well-known award." The alternative construction of the WP:PORNBIO, that only personally receiving a well-known award would qualify someone for inclusion in Wikipedia is certainly plausible, but I assume for the sake of argument that the guideline really is as ridiculous as you claim. Moreover, the argument that SNGs must play second fiddle to the general notability guideline is not one of my own invention, as similar sentiments have been expressed by respected editors and admins who have contributed extensively to Wikipedia:
- The value of SNGs is to provide reasonable presumptions that the GNG can be fulfilled. Using them to trump the GNG runs against the very basis of the notability principle and the basic content principles from which it arises. --Vassyana (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC) [1][reply]
- The SNGs are meant to describe cases where GNG-accepted coverage can likely be found given time and resources for editors to find them (based on past experience and consensus), but not to evade showing notability via the GNG indefinitely. It is not overriding the GNG, only a means to show notability is met if there is no obvious GNG at the immediate time. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC) [2][reply]
- Your attempt to questionably construe WP:PORNBIO, then use your view of this SNG as a means to force myriad biographies of NN porn performers who will probably never meet the GNG down our throats is deplorable. Chester Markel (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ?? The de-fanged PORNBIO states two or more awards in different years and does not specifically discount an award if it was for group efforts. So is your use of "deplorable" being used toward me personally, toward my recognition that PORNBIO is flawed, or toward my comments that the GNG and SNGs are intended to be mutually supportive and not mutually exclusionary? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I make no assumption "that one could never find sources speaking toward porn stars." It's obviously possible for porn actors/actresses to satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. Jenna Jameson, for instance, clearly does. However, at least as you interpret it, WP:PORNBIO is clearly skewed, since it would confer notability upon each and every person who may have appeared for only two minutes in a one hundred person orgy, if the scene had "won a well-known award." The alternative construction of the WP:PORNBIO, that only personally receiving a well-known award would qualify someone for inclusion in Wikipedia is certainly plausible, but I assume for the sake of argument that the guideline really is as ridiculous as you claim. Moreover, the argument that SNGs must play second fiddle to the general notability guideline is not one of my own invention, as similar sentiments have been expressed by respected editors and admins who have contributed extensively to Wikipedia:
- Interesting minority viewpoint, but not per "existing" consensus, as the the GNG and SNGs are not mutually exlusionary and are instead intended to be mutually supportive. This is why the GNG is not policy and has failed repeated efforts to make it so... specially as both majority consensus and existing guideline allows that notability may be established without a topic having significant coverage, just so long as long as the notability assertion is verifiable. Verifiability is not required to itself be significant coverage, and notability is not popularity. Of course, your interesting argument seems to assume that one could never find sources speaking toward porn stars... or that repeated and continued coverage of porn stars in porn genre sources does not meet the GNG. However, if you feel it or any SNG might disproportionately represent the wishes of only those users with an editorial interest in the subject matter, hold an RFC to eliminate PORNBIO as a guideline and let's then get all porn stars and porn related articles off of Wikipedia.... and then we can work to remove any SNG whose topic is of interest to the editors who edit those articles. Of course, and while Wikipedia is for the readers and not the editors... censorship begins at home. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Topic-specific notability guidance is intended as a surrogate for the general notability guideline, to avoid the needless deletion of articles on topics that are notable per the GNG, simply because no one has yet performed the research necessary to identify significant coverage by reliable sources. For instance, if any reliable source establishes that someone was a United States senator serving a single term beginning in 1950, it may reasonably be assumed without further evidence that they are notable because significant coverage will exist, even if finding it requires the use of offline sources such as microfilmed newspapers. However, to the extent that the text of WP:PORNBIO declares notability for people who will probably never meet the GNG, it does not represent a consensus of the community. That's not surprising, since the authorship of WP:PORNBIO disproportionately represents users with an editorial interest in the subject matter, rather than a neutral cross-section of the community. Chester Markel (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The GNG is not the sole criteria that may be considered. What IS required is that the awards and nominations set by PORNBIO are properly verifiable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes PORNBIO. I interpret scene awards as awards to the perfomers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's useful to note that, on the relatively infrequent occasions when a nominated scene has its own identifying title, that AVN typically does not list performer names -- another indication that the performer names are listed to identify the scene, rather than as the award recipients. For example, item 40 on the 2009 AVN awards list, as announced by AVN [3]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - She was nominated for an AVN Award for multiple years--Johnsmith877 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per morbid. --178.152.77.18 (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC) — 178.152.77.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nominator--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, obviously, as per morbidthoughts. An odd AFD. --94.116.79.29 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC) — 94.116.79.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets the criteria for notability as set in WP:PORNBIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the claim then that group awards provide notability to all in the group? That seems possible, but I don't know that WP:PORNBIO makes that clear enough to be a black-and-white issue... Hobit (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept is reflected in other notability criteria where members of certain groups may be recognized for their contributions to that group causing that group to win a notable award. If there was no contribution to the group effort, there would be no award. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- btw, thanks for the longer note on my talk page. I'm just not sure that two group nominations are really the bar we should have, nor that that's what PORNBIO says. That said your arguments are perfectly reasonable and valid and based on the !vote your view will likely take the day here... Hobit (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept is reflected in other notability criteria where members of certain groups may be recognized for their contributions to that group causing that group to win a notable award. If there was no contribution to the group effort, there would be no award. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the claim then that group awards provide notability to all in the group? That seems possible, but I don't know that WP:PORNBIO makes that clear enough to be a black-and-white issue... Hobit (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In my opinion, group-scene awards aren't "significant" enough to establish notability, as the contribution made to the scene by each individual is relatively minor. Many believe that WP:PORNBIO needs some tightening, and discounting group-scene awards would be a good start. Epbr123 (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In order to create as wide a consensus for such as possible, it might perhaps better to discuss over at PORNBIO the removing of or reconsideration of or clarification of "notable porn awards", rather doing so one AFD at a time. And with its deconstruction, we might also work toward PORNBIO being eventually removed and then all porn stars removed from Wikipedia entirely if their notability is dependent only upon winning an award (group or individual) notable to only that one narrow genre. Such awards should be seen to be just as self-serving as the Oscars... an award for members of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences that are awarded by Academy members themselves in a glorified and self-serving back-slapping vanity. But until such time as PORNBIO specifically states that awarded eforts of group members for their contribution to group efforts do not count, we need to treat all guidelines dealing with group efforts as evenly as possible. One can imagine the furor over at WP:ATH if someone tried to make it that winning a pennant was not to be considered notable for a baseball player simply because it was based upon an recipient's contribution to a group... but at least there, that award is dependent on statistics showing that the group actually beat out all other competition IN a competition... and is not based on some arbitrary genre popularity.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable porn model. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...another vote to eliminate PORNBIO as a guideline! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pornbio is as worthless as this bio - its all about promo writers and the AVI awards - imo -this person is unworthy of a page at wikipedia - pornbio is a valueless criteria and I reject it completely as a reason to keep anything on the project. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excelent. That reasoning applies to any SNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
- Pornbio is as worthless as this bio - its all about promo writers and the AVI awards - imo -this person is unworthy of a page at wikipedia - pornbio is a valueless criteria and I reject it completely as a reason to keep anything on the project. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...another vote to eliminate PORNBIO as a guideline! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not imo - WP:SNG - I am only speaking for myself and in regards to this single worthless notability guideline. If pornbio supports the hosting of people of such limited note and only in a promotional manner then pornbio also needs deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument applies to any SNG that allows notability to be established though verifiability of an assertion. PORNBIO was once far more comprehensive, but it has eroded quite a bit. At one time being featured in a nationally and internationally recognized publication (Playboy) was one of the common sense notability criteria of PORNBIO... and even as it that portion was discussed and removed, strong arguments were made that in a genre magazine read by millions even outside the genre, it should at least be seen as meeting the GNG. The currently shrunk and far less comprehensive PORNBIO does not address notability for group efforts. As other more comprehensive SNGs specifically DO allow notability for an award given in recognition for a group effort, and as PORNBIO is essentially deprecated, there is no reason any more for its existance. And as there will then be no acceptable manner by which participants in such a narrow genre can be found notable within that genre, except through am insistance that these genre participants can only be notability if that notability exists outside their genre, the removing it as an SNG will then allow a purge of all porn-related content from Wikipedia. And as children can read Wikipedia, a little careful censorship should be encouraged.... And in a related note, we should give grave consideration of a rewrite of the policy statements made under WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:NOTPORN could be added. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Porn is not a narrow, endangered genre. It's the foundation of the internet! --WTFITS (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly the genre is not endangered... but the use of weakened genre criteria to determine notability of the genre for Wikipedia is. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Porn is not a narrow, endangered genre. It's the foundation of the internet! --WTFITS (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument applies to any SNG that allows notability to be established though verifiability of an assertion. PORNBIO was once far more comprehensive, but it has eroded quite a bit. At one time being featured in a nationally and internationally recognized publication (Playboy) was one of the common sense notability criteria of PORNBIO... and even as it that portion was discussed and removed, strong arguments were made that in a genre magazine read by millions even outside the genre, it should at least be seen as meeting the GNG. The currently shrunk and far less comprehensive PORNBIO does not address notability for group efforts. As other more comprehensive SNGs specifically DO allow notability for an award given in recognition for a group effort, and as PORNBIO is essentially deprecated, there is no reason any more for its existance. And as there will then be no acceptable manner by which participants in such a narrow genre can be found notable within that genre, except through am insistance that these genre participants can only be notability if that notability exists outside their genre, the removing it as an SNG will then allow a purge of all porn-related content from Wikipedia. And as children can read Wikipedia, a little careful censorship should be encouraged.... And in a related note, we should give grave consideration of a rewrite of the policy statements made under WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:NOTPORN could be added. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not imo - WP:SNG - I am only speaking for myself and in regards to this single worthless notability guideline. If pornbio supports the hosting of people of such limited note and only in a promotional manner then pornbio also needs deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Err. barely meets "pornbio" ("multiple nominations" = 2), and that rule is already dubious, as discussed above. There not much to go on in the article. Most of it is unattributed, some attributed to IAFD, IMDB, and AFDB. AFDB has some bare stats, IAFD has basically zero info, IMDB even gets her name wrong (or we've got it wrong, or we've missed an alias or three...) Are these reliable sources then? The award nom pages give zero info, other than the fact of her nomination, presumably included just to meet the rule we're talking about. So, what we do have is: that she was nominated, and she is highly rated on Brazzers, duly cited. That's not a bio, and I strongly doubt it can become one. This can maybe be made an entry on a list of nominees for certain awards, and that's about it. --WTFITS (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From the article, which itself reads like an AVN biopage, the only thing this woman receives recognition for in her porn work is sex with multiple partners. Of course as Brazzers is rating one of their own, it is not exactly independent as a citation. If the awards from AVN for group actions do not confer notability to the group members for their recognized contributions, then the article should be modified to address the group scene(s) found notable by the awards, and not be about just one individual who actions contributed to the scene being so awarded. More to the point, if the latest version of PORNBIO and its current lack of clarity are being seen as dubious in application to the field it is alleged to represent, then it should go. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you're trying to say here and in other comments above. If you're saying we should wait for the rules to be updated before deleting the article, that is wrong. This is because we are not governed by statute, and it is especially important to bear this point in mind when we're talking about borderline cases of the rule in question. If you're saying that we're setting a bad precedent here, and that this would lead to a purge of porn biographies that deserve to be on Wikipedia, that is also wrong. This is because this article hardly deserves to be called a biography. --WTFITS (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From the article, which itself reads like an AVN biopage, the only thing this woman receives recognition for in her porn work is sex with multiple partners. Of course as Brazzers is rating one of their own, it is not exactly independent as a citation. If the awards from AVN for group actions do not confer notability to the group members for their recognized contributions, then the article should be modified to address the group scene(s) found notable by the awards, and not be about just one individual who actions contributed to the scene being so awarded. More to the point, if the latest version of PORNBIO and its current lack of clarity are being seen as dubious in application to the field it is alleged to represent, then it should go. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am fairly certain that there was an old discussion regarding this and the ridiculously retarded guideline that is WP:PORNBIO. IIRC, it drew the notability line at excluding nominees for group awards. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You remember incorrectly.[4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't care less what the wiki-porno project people have to say on the matter, quite honestly. I believe there were discussions in a more...credible...location, such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Pornbio is weak enough as it is, extending it to cover all participants in gangbang scenes is too much of a stretch, IMO. My delete call stands. Tarc (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the people at the "credible" Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) nearly blocked the porn project's proposal to toughen pornbio in 2009 [5]. The most recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) about group porn scenes didn't get enough input to form a consensus [6]. Epbr123 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, I see that latter discussion mentions a similar AfD where PORNBIO was met, but basic inclusion criteria were clearly not. This resulted in a deletion, and quite rightly so. --WTFITS (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the people at the "credible" Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) nearly blocked the porn project's proposal to toughen pornbio in 2009 [5]. The most recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) about group porn scenes didn't get enough input to form a consensus [6]. Epbr123 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there someone that could checkuser the single edit IP addresses to see if they have accounts? Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't care less what the wiki-porno project people have to say on the matter, quite honestly. I believe there were discussions in a more...credible...location, such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Pornbio is weak enough as it is, extending it to cover all participants in gangbang scenes is too much of a stretch, IMO. My delete call stands. Tarc (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You remember incorrectly.[4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2011 (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.