User talk:Rebecca1990

This user may have left Wikipedia. Rebecca1990 has not edited Wikipedia since September 21, 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Rebecca1990. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Seagull123 Φ 22:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rebecca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.129.220 (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but in this recent edit you removed a speedy deletion tag from Category:American pornographic film actors of Irish descent, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category%3aAmerican_pornographic_film_actors_of_Irish_descent?diff=517453089 Piandcompany (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pornographic film actors of German ethnicity[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Category:Pornographic film actors of German ethnicity, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Nymf _hideliho! 21:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pornographic film actors of Irish ethnicity[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Category:Pornographic film actors of Irish ethnicity, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Nymf _hideliho! 21:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Category:American pornographic film actors of Spanish descent has been reverted, as it removed all content from the page without explanation. Please do not do this, as it is considered vandalism; use the sandbox for testing. If you think the page should be deleted, see here for what to do. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Selena Rose[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Selena Rose, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Selena Rose for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Selena Rose is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selena Rose (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. January (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made the point that there are other porn actresses who have Wikipedia articles that do not meet notability standards. That doesn't mean we should make an exception for this actress because of them, instead, you should request deletion for those other articles. I suggest you evaluate articles according to WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO and WP:N, and request deletion for those lacking proper notability.Rhowryn (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Jynx Maze at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2012.jpg.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Jynx Maze at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2012.jpg.png, which you've sourced to http://www.flickr.com/photos/chiropractic/6769380389/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Style[edit]

While it is a little bit easier to track changes through multiple edits, making ten edits in a row, especially for such minor and non-controversial content is extremely tedious to look through. Try to make all minor changes in one edit, and if there you have content that may not be agreeable to others, add that separately. Rhowryn (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Ford[edit]

Luke licensed his pictures for use on wikipedia long ago. He's a bright guy, a funny writer, and has done some important things. I admire him. But his various websites (past and present) are not reliable sources for information in biographies of living people. That includes your recent edit about Kitty Diamond. Thanks. Happy editing. David in DC (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012[edit]

Edits like these are, quite simply, vandalism. Please refrain from substituting the names of the wrong teams for the right ones. Your edits lasted a few days before they were reverted. They look suspiciously like test edits, made a couple of weeks before your current spree of porn-related edits and recreations of previously deleted porn actor articles. Please be constructive or please be elsewhere. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blitz of page creation and editing[edit]

Hi Rebecca. Your recent edits lead me to ask a question I hope you won't find offensive. Are you trying to use wikipedia to raise the profile of a certain group of pornographic actors? Wikipedia biographies are supposed to be about people who are already notable. They're not supposed to be used to help make them more notable.

I could be wrong, but your edits look more like those of a publicist with an off-wiki agenda than those of a disinterested editor with no conflict of interest.

Please feel free to tell me I'm wrong, with no fear of offending me. I'm the one who may be making a mountain out of a molehill here. But direct, unequivocal reassurance from you could go a long way toward helping me control what may be an erroneous, knee-jerk reaction.

Best regards,
David in DC (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Karlie Montana[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Karlie Montana, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Abella Anderson[edit]

A tag has been placed on Abella Anderson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madison Ivy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter North (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brooklyn Lee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Scott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Abella Anderson for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abella Anderson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abella Anderson (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. David in DC (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Hello! Rebecca1990, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Ajayupai95 (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rebecca1990. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Maddy O’Reilly.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Slutty and Sluttier for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Slutty and Sluttier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slutty and Sluttier until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AVN Female Performer of the Year Award, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cytherea and Obsession (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dana Vespoli[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dana Vespoli, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, the article has been restored. L Faraone 14:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Hello. As you participated in the related deletion discussion, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Vanilla DeVille you might be interested in. Thank you. Cavarrone (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maddy O'Reilly[edit]

I userfied this article for you. If you are wondering why, refer to the edit summary. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Leilani Leeane[edit]

The article Leilani Leeane has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails PORNBIO, only one of the AVN noms isn't scene-related, and the other awards/noms fail the well-known/significant test; no substantial reliably sourced bio content

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jada Stevens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TB[edit]

Hello, Rebecca1990. You have new messages at Cavarrone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aiden Starr[edit]

I userfied this article for basically the same reason I userfied the Maddy O'Reilly article (refer to the edit summary). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar

I couldn't have said this better myself. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN (not about you)[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Harassment from an admin". Thank you. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be considerate[edit]

- and refrain from making oblique personal attacks at editors and/or admins who are only doing their work within the parameters of policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "personal attacks", I was simply asking you to unsalt an article per a DRV consensus. And I know it's difficult to convey a proper tone in writing, and I don't blame you for misunderstanding me, but I never made any personal attacks towards you. Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Francesca Le may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*1994 [[AVN Award]] – Best Group Sex Scene (Film) – ''New Wave Hookers 3'' (with [[Tyffany Million]], [[Lacy Rose]], Crystal Wilder, [[Rocco Siffredi]], [[Jon Dough]]<ref>{{

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of Jessie Rogers[edit]

I restored the article in a semi protected state and opened a WP:DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 16#Jessie Rogers. You may want to participate in the discussion. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 08:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Byron[edit]

Hi Rebecca.

In Diff of Tom Byron you remove numerous sourced awards without leaving an edit summary. Why?

Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because those awards are already listed on the article for Seasoned Players. If the film series didn't have it's own WP article, I would have left the awards on Tom Byron's article. Although I think a better location on WP for awards received by films from his company, but not received by Byron himself would be more appropriate to list on the article for his company Evolution Erotica. If his company didn't have it's own article, I would leave it's awards on Byron's article, but I'll probably move them over to Evolution Erotica's article later. Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Another time leave an edit summary, they can save a lot of time. Happy editing. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 10:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kiera King for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kiera King is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiera King until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deauxma[edit]

Thanks for helping with Elexis Monroe, but...do you think you'd want to give Deauxma a try again? She was just nominated again; plus, DRV appears to now be overseen by more objective admins. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 00:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm really sorry people, but these kind of pointy actions really aren't helping things at all. As long as the PORNBIO standard remains "disputed" (whether we all like the fact that it currently receives no deference from more than a few administrators & other Wikipedia editors), these kind of discussions at DRV are going to go nowhere & fast. Please try instead to work to achieve better consensus on how PORNBIO should be changed from here on out. Guy1890 (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably start a DRV for Deauxma after the XBIZ Award winners are announced. There's a possibility that she might actually win the award and if that were the case, I would have a stronger argument. I'd also like to wait for the AVN Award nominations to be announced as well as the winners. So far, Deauxma is up for "Hottest MILF" and "Social Media Star" for the AVN fan voting awards, which are insignificant unless she actually wins, so I would like to see if she garners more nominations first. I think both Deauxma and Elexis Monroe met the PORNBIO guideline before the 2014 XBIZ nominations were announced and I really don't understand what happened in the discussions for these articles. I think the problem was the extensive participation of several biased users. Notice how immediately afterward, a dispute of PORNBIO began. These users wanted to change PORNBIO and even eliminate it to satisfy their own agendas. Funny how we get accused of personalizing the discussion simply for pointing this out but they don't get warnings for their own behavior which violates WP guidelines and rules. Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PORNBIO was marked with the disputed tag towards the end of this discussion about "DRV treatment of porn-related content". As a result of that discussion, which several routine DRV commentators participated in, it's pretty obvious that PORNBIO will get little to no deference at DRV unless & until PORNBIO is changed. Are there some Wikipedia editors (and unfortunately administrators) that probably have an anti-porn bias? Sure there are, but unless one can figure out a way to ban them from porn-related discussions, which is highly unlikely IMHO, you're going to continue to run into a wall on these types of issues. I don't like that anymore than anyone else, but those are the facts as I see them though. Eliminating PORNBIO entriely isn't going to change anything, and there's no consensus do that anyways. You can't continually buck the system here on Wikipedia without consequences. Guy1890 (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt PORNBIO will ever be gone completely, but that's exactly what some of the naysayers want to happen. But there has been progress, especially thanks to DGG, who is giving most of the articles at DRV a fair chance and telling users to focus on the subject instead of PORNBIO. Another change is that I told off the main person that has been throwing around the "personalizing" nonsense (as well as displaying his my-way-or-the-highway attitude) and surprisingly, he actually shut up. But the saddest thing is that the person who seems to be fighting the most about all this and starting frivolous AfDs is an admin, who should know better. In fact, earlier today he tried to argue that Best Actress isn't a notable award. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you can also tell that the porn-haters are running out of ideas because when subjects clearly pass the notability guidelines via their nominations, the argument for "delete" is something along the lines of, "Uh, well, these awards aren't important because...uh, [award ceremony name here] is a PR corporation, and...uh, these thus aren't secondary sources, and..." blah, blah, blah. And one user even accused me of having a COI because I apparently work for the porn industry (which I don't). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personalising discussions because you disagree with what other people think is a sure fire way to get yourself topic banned as is pointy behaviour like refusing to accept a consensus and making repeat nominations on the same basis. Fair warning Erpert, comment on the contributions not the commentator. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really haven't "told off" anyone "Erpert"...all you've done is unwittingly laid the ground work for possible sanctions against yourself & others. I understand that you think that you're helping out in the long-run, but that's really not the case. You've already complained about Spartaz's actions at AN and (like it or not) no one really gave a damn. All that really ended up doing was getting the PORNBIO standard with a disputed tag slapped on it, which is not at all helpful IMHO. Quite frankly, I can understand why some of the anti-porn editors on Wikipedia would think that you & "Rebecca" would have some kind of connection to the adult industry, not that I personally agree that you, in fact, do have a COI. Seriously people, none of this is helpful, and it's not going to end up well for either of you. Guy1890 (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People seriously think I have a connection to the porn industry? I don't, and there is no proof that I do. And Spartaz, what would it take to get you to, once and for all, explain how I am personalizing anything? ~~(If you have a real answer for that, respond on my talk page; otherwise, leave it alone and please retire that argument.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)~~ Actually, on second thought, don't respond on my talk page, because I don't appreciate wikihounders. Anyway...Guy, I don't understand how re-evaluating something because of new information is pointy (if it were the same information, maybe, but...); in fact, this kind of new information resulted in the reinstatements of articles like Capri Anderson, Celeste Star, Darla Crane, Anissa Kate, and I'm sure many others. And the "disputed" tag apparently actually stemmed from this discussion, which I didn't start (I say "apparently" because I opted out of that discussion before it was over). Basically, maybe "told off" and "shut up" weren't the best terms to use, but I just don't understand why the subject of pornography doesn't seem to be getting as fair of a chance as other topics on here, which is why I'm working so hard at it. In fact, I've even done that for subjects I don't even like, like Nigger (dog) (because I'm black, btw) and List of HIV-positive people. Why? Because when it comes to determining notability, Wikipedia couldn't care less about my (or anyone's else's) personal opinion. But to suggest that I have a COI because of that reason seems ridiculous. I'm a huge fan of Lady Gaga; if I !vote "keep" in an AfD about her, does that mean I'm her agent?[reply]

Anyway, that's all I'll say about this because I'm not the kind of person to make a battleground anywhere, especially on someone else's talk page. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actions have consequences, and sometimes those consequences are unfortunately unanticipated. Without the original complaint about Spartaz's behavior at AN, which really never had a chance of going anywhere IMHO, there wouldn't have been that discussion at AN about "DRV treatment of porn-related content", which is pretty much how the PORNBIO standard ended up with its current (and undeserved IMHO, since you can discuss changing a standard without that kind of tag) disputed tag. I really don't understand what the "fixation" is on both your parts when it comes to Deauxma & Elexis Monroe in particular. Wikipedia is really not going to collapse upon itself if we don't have articles on those two people, and, while I don't have a problem with pornography myself (especially since Wikipedia isn't supposed to censored in the first place), these types of articles aren't the most important articles on Wikipedia by a long shot. I'm not saying that I agree with the anti-porn crowd on Wikipedia at all, but there are much larger issues than the issues that are in play here. "I'm a huge fan of Lady Gaga; if I !vote 'keep' in an AfD about her, does that mean I'm her agent?" No, but it does mean that you aren't having an open mind if that's the only reason that you voted "keep". A lot (but not all) of the "delete" votes at pornography-related AfDs are pretty obviously motivated by a personal anti-porn bias, which is wrong, but there's very little that one can do about it except try & make a better, more policy-based argument in response & hope that the closing administartor isn't just counting votes. Guy1890 (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this year?[edit]

Wow, she's ranked #12 right now on Freeones.com [1], maybe she'll win something this year...! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deauxma is salted, which means we'd have to go through DRV to be able to create it. A win for a controversial award like "MILF Performer of the Year" or "Best Actress - All-Girl Release" won't be enough to convince users at DRV who want as few porn biography articles as possible on WP. I will not go there unless Deauxma get inducted into the AVN Hall of Fame. If I take Deauxma to DRV over any other award, not only will they refuse to restore her article, they will also tighten PORNBIO again, which will result in the deletion of even more biographies on notable porn stars. Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what makes things so dire towards her? If she wins something any less than a Hall of Fame induction, why would it matter? PORNBIO is pretty clear about AVN or XBIZ, even to the Admins. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is a lot more hostile towards porn biographies than AfD, so if awards like AVN's Twitter Queen, XBIZ's Girl/Girl Performer of the Year, Urban X Award for Rising Star (Female), XRCO Deep Throat Award, Tranny Award for Best Non-Transsexual Performer, and UKAFTA's for Best Actress and Best Overseas Female Performer, which clearly meet the PORNBIO guideline for being well-known/significant and not a scene-related/ensemble category, resulted in "no consensus" instead of "keep" at AfD, we can't expect them to meet DRV's ridiculously high expectations. I know that Deauxma has absolutely no chance whatsoever at winning porn's two most important awards: Best New Starlet (not a newcomer) and Female Performer of the Year (older performers are placed in the MILF Performer of the Year category instead and are practically disqualified from being nominated for Female Performer of the Year. For example, India Summer did more movies than any other female in the porn industry in 2011 and she still did not get a single Female Performer of the Year nomination from any award show. Instead, she was nominated for, and won, all the MILF awards.) But don't worry, if she actually keeps her word ("I just got new boobs so I have zero plans to retire. As long as I don't have to use a walker, I'll keep going"), then she will eventually be inducted into the AVN Hall of Fame. It might take a while though. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, its just a bummer. I used to chat with her on occasion on another website and while its not terribly problematic for her, she does wonder why her article kept getting deleted when so many others (less notable) were kept. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kennedy Leigh[edit]

Hello Rebecca1990,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kennedy Leigh for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Tco03displays (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Mack[edit]

I was wondering what you see wrong with the Christy Mack I myself don't see any problems JMichael22 (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I corrected some things in the article. The tone is no longer an issue, but a couple of things remain unsourced and I tagged them with the "Citation needed template". I removed the Rihanna/Instagram paragraph from the article as well because I don't think it's suitable for inclusion on an encyclopedia. I also reverted your edit to her current residence, which is Indianapolis, not San Diego. If after the cited interview she did move to San Diego, then find a reliable source for it before changing it again. Rebecca1990 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rihanna thing was something too note I felt because it was like a pop culture situation involving her it was all over the internet for awhile, also the things you say need sources had sources and it shows you removed them I don't understand that, and finally She resides in San Diego, California with her Boyfriend War Machine I will try too find the interview of them from MMA Fighting.com where they state that because your source if from mid 2012 it's not up to date JMichael22 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I found an interview about War Machine and in it he states their residence in San Diego JMichael22 (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pornographic film actors of Spanish ethnicity[edit]

Category:Pornographic film actors of Spanish ethnicity, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ava Addams for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ava Addams is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Addams until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bonnie Rotten[edit]

Please do not make articles about a living person that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative unreferenced biographies of living people are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CensoredBiscuit (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jessa Rhodes[edit]

The article Jessa Rhodes has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Safiel (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jessa Rhodes for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jessa Rhodes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessa Rhodes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Jessa Rhodes has been nominated for two awards, winning none. While multiple nominations MIGHT qualify, that refers to multiple nominations in multiple years. Two nominations CLEARLY doesn't satisfy the guidelines. If she wins in 2014, then feel free to recreate this. But right now this actress clearly falls short. Safiel (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"that refers to multiple nominations in multiple years." No, it really doesn't. I'm pretty sure that you don't actually understand the guidelines that you're trying to cite here & elsewhere. A TOO SOON might apply though. Guy1890 (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rikki Six, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Riverside (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article help, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Danica Dillon[edit]

Hi Rebecca, I realize that you have your plate full with various Adult related articles, but would you mind looking at the article I'm working on about Danica Dillon. I submitted it via Articles for Creation (which I will NEVER do again because of the backlog for review) and no surprise, it was rejected. That said, would you take a look at the formatting and such and let me know what I can do to make it better. I'm particularly confused by the Awards chart, your assistance would be greatly appreciated... :) p.s. I'm happy to help out with other Adult articles, I received AVN and routinely look thru it for citations to use in existing articles. BTW, I used to work in the Entertainment industry (mainstream) and previously lived in San Fernando Valley. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll help you with Danica Dillon's article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, with regard to IMDb, why isn't it a reliable source for real names? For basic information like this, its a paid staff, fact checked site. Its the forums, trivia, and other misc that is User Contributed. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the references I've used support all of the content that is there. I'll sort out the (citation needed) templates. Thank you for the edits!! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article passes the notability guidelines WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO, but the sourcing and content still need to be corrected. Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!! Hopefully our seemingly anti-porn friend won't object. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PORNBIO discussion[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_As_regards_WP:PORNBIO.2C_should_the_criteria_for_awards_nominations_be_removed_from_the_guideline.3F So I just brought up and made the argument that probably no one would consider deletion of Susan Lucci's article simply because it took her so long to finally win an award. It might seem trivial, but it does bring to light the porn bias. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a similar comment about Leonardo DiCaprio never winning an Oscar. I think it's ridiculous to change the guideline to exclude nominations because it will result in the deletion of notable porn stars. The tightening of that notability guideline does not coincide with notability in the definition of the word. There are already too many very famous porn stars who fail the notability guidelines. There's Sara Jay and Rachel Starr. I have been to countless porn websites, such as Freeones, where these girls are often in the top 10. Sara Jay is currently #8 and Rachel Starr is #29, but I have seen her up higher on that list before. But the votes in favor of removing nominations is overwhelmingly higher than the votes in favor of keeping them. Only a Christmas miracle can prevent the inevitable. That guideline is unfortunately going to exclude nominations. I just hope that users with common sense choose to WP:Ignore all rules and not delete articles on really famous porn stars, since that prevents us from improving or maintaining WP. Rebecca1990 (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't agree more and find what's going to be highly hypocritical. We need to find more support or get some rational Admins involved. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freeones.com[edit]

Speaking of Freeones.com, I've been trying to put together an article that won't be deleted, but that's just step 1. I'd like to create a {{template}} like the IMDB or Twitter one where an actors listing on Freeones can be easily added. Something like {{freeones|i_links/India_Summer}} which would display "India Summer on Freeones.com". There's one for IAFD and AFDB, so why not Freeones?. Its been written about several times plus its the opinion of many in the Industry itself that the site is a good indication of a stars' particular popularity at any given point. What do you think? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea, but for now lets work on improving existing articles instead of creating new ones. There are many articles on notable porn stars that will fail PORNBIO if the guideline is changed to exclude nominations and I'm improving them so they can satisfy the GNG guideline. Creating new WP article right now would be a waste of time since they will be deleted by the anti-porn editors on here. For example, I recently created articles for Kiera King and Jessa Rhodes and they were sent to AfD and deleted shortly afterward. Rebecca1990 (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, you're preaching to the choir, I can hold off on loftier pursuits for now. I've been working on Janet Mason (I think its on its 4th deletion) along with Nikki Fritz, Katie Banks, and Madison Ivy since I discovered that they had articles in the Italian Wikipedia. Too bad we can't use "international precedent" as a qualification. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Guess what? Freeones.com founder Maurice has just been announced as an inductee into the AVN Hall of Fame for 2014! See for yourself. What a coincidence huh? I still think we should wait to create an article and/or a template, but this is a good indication of the websites importance in that industry. Rebecca1990 (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Very cool, we can use that later. By the way, based in part on the porn bias we've been seeing along with similar sentiments with other subjects, I just wrote this essay... WikiBigotry. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kristina_and_Karissa_Shannon#Playmate_Twins_distinction[edit]

If you have a moment, would you mind weighing in on this discussion? I've been reverted 3 times now for information that I've managed to source specifically and that appears to be unique to the subjects of the article, thus worthy of inclusion. Personally I prefer not to report Users for things like this, I like to "talk it out", but I've put a (3RR) warning on the Users Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Tate, Shannon twins part 2 and again with Wolf[edit]

Hi Rebecca, sorry to bring you into the fray again. But in the Tanya Tate article I'm on my second go around with Wolf. He removed the Paul Raymond award that she won and you added on the basis that (from his edit summary) "not noteworthy, employee-of-the-year type award". I added back, he reverted it (several times) and to make a long story short, this is his second instance of violating 3RR in just a few days with me. He's done it other times as evident on his Talk page. Its your addition and its referenced, would you mind adding it back. I'm not interested in officially reporting someone, but Wolf is the first person I've seriously considered. Thanks... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	You're logical and diligent, two wonderful qualities that should go together more often... :) Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PORNBIO, new attribute, time in industry[edit]

http://m.xhamster.com/movies/2353855/black_and_ebony_couple_hardcore_sex_scene.html] Do you know the names of the ppl in this vid Since the awards (nominations and wins) are controversial and the notability of the actual awards gets challenged, what if we add an attribute that is factual data based? My underlying assumption is that many, if not a significant number, are "short timers". Furthermore, its likely that (but not always true of course, i.e. Tracy Lords, Savannah, Shauna Grant) short timers will not become Notable per WP standards. Porn actors come and go, some stay, a lot don't. And on occasion, some come back, even after many years out of the business. In my opinion, that makes the Adult industry decently unique. So "time in industry" should be taken into consideration for PORNBIO Notability. This way every newbie that comes on the scene won't get an article automatically unless s/he's associated with something really unique.

So if we find an acceptable way to calculate the length of the average Adult career, we will have an additional high water mark of sorts to gauge who might be Notable. I have an idea for this and it has an independently published source.

This also could affect the Infobox adult biography, where I'd like to see "Years active" (a range, like Mainstream actors and models have currently) or "Year started" added as support for this new guideline.

Then I started thinking about what the objections could be about adding this attribute. One could be that Porn is no different from the Mainstream industry in this respect; a point that I'm happy to let as many Users as possible argue is true. In the long run, this just works in our favor. If anti-porn or porn-indifferent Users want to argue that an aspect of Adult is just like Mainstream, I say we let them.

But back to the point, the regular Entertainment industry has throngs of hopeful wannabes coming to Hollywood to "get a part" and then get their "big break". Some get parts (hence one of the reasons that IMDb exists), but relatively few get that "big break". Conversely in Adult, its fairly easy to "get a part" (OK, at least for the women) and work as long as they'd like, but fewer still attain any kind of status even with publications trying to boost up every actor that they can that does not include controversy (ex. Bree Olson, Charlie Sheen's ex-GF).

What are your thoughts? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what length of time has to do with notability. For example, Sasha Grey and Nina Hartley are two of the biggest porn superstars ever and Grey's career only lasted 4 years while Hartley's has lasted 30 years so far and she remains active in the industry and she claims that she will never retire. Trying to change the PORNBIO guideline would just be adding more wood to the fire. The PORNBIO guideline will not be loosened, it will only be tightened more if we dispute it again, so it is better to keep it the same. The recent PORNBIO dispute was probably my fault for taking Deauxma's article to DRV and trying to unsalt it. Her article passed the previous PORNBIO guideline and it passes the current ANYBIO guideline as well, but both the DRV and the AfD had far more "Delete" votes than "Keep" votes. These users refused to keep the article because they thought she didn't pass the GNG and that her article wasn't reliably sourced. The article was indeed reliably sourced so of course, this is all an excuse to hide their anti-pornography agenda, although not all of them did a very good job at hiding it since some of them clearly stated that they personally didn't like PORNBIO. Since they knew Deauxma passed PORNBIO they decided to change the guideline just to make her fail it. If I would have known that this debate over Deauxma's notability would result in not only Deauxma's article not being unsalted and recreated, but also the PORNBIO guideline being altered to what would result in the deletion of god knows how many other articles for notable porn stars, I would have never gone to DRV. Elexis Monroe is another example of a porn star whose article was also been targeted by the anti-porn WP users, despite there being many other articles with similar award nominations that have been kept at AfD. A porn article getting salted seems like the point of no return and I doubt I'll ever go back to DRV. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, I'm saying that use an attribute of the industry to our advantage, a LOT of people come and go. I'm not saying its criteria enough by itself, but your examples, Sasha Grey and Nina Hartley, are perfect and here is how I would defend the "time in the industry" attribute in their cases. With regard to Nina Hartley, its obvious, she's bucked the trend and is a diehard. She's got Adult and mainstream sources all over the place. If we get the attribute added, it gives us a definable measure as well as a means to potentially add unchallenged articles for other long term actors because they meet this and the other criteria of PORNBIO. With regard to Sasha Grey, she's a perfect example of an exception. She exploded onto the scene and crossed over with fairly significant (and easily sourced) success. In other words, if someone makes its past the typical "industry length of time" threshold, they become a better candidate. Before that, we don't bother to investigate unless they do something to become WP:NOTABLE versus "just a more famous than usual" porn star which is kind of how it appears now. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I feel bad about Deauxma too. My wife and I know her through a website that she and her husband belong to. She's not bothered by a lack of an article, but seeing who does have one versus hers being deleted over and over is a little depressing. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"With regard to Sasha Grey, she's a perfect example of an exception." Not really, plenty of porn stars have become big stars with a very short term career. The most recent example is Brooklyn Lee. Her career lasted three years and in that time she won the AVN Best New Starlet Award, won the XBIZ Award for Female Performer of the Year, won several other awards, was given the lead role in the 2013 remake of Behind the Green Door, and appeared in the music video for P!nk's song Raise Your Glass. Lauren Phoenix was nominated for the AVN Best New Starlet Award and won Female Performer of the Year the following year, among several other awards. She crossed over into mainstream by modelling for American Apparel and her career only lasted three years and now shes gone. Unlike Sasha Grey, who is now a mainstream actress/musician/model/author/screenwriter/etc. and Brooklyn Lee who is out promoting the Behind the Green Door remake and keeps in touch with people in the adult industry such as her best friend Tasha Reign, we don't know where Lauren Phoenix went. She completely disappeared. She didn't pursue a mainstream career, she doesn't have a Twitter or Tumblr or website or any contact with her fans to let them know what shes been up to since retiring eight years ago. She doesn't attend AVN Expos or Exxxotica conventions. We don't know if she continues to reside in the U.S. or if she moved back to Canada. We don't know if she went to college, if she has a career, what that career is, if she's a housewife, if she has children, if she's a hooker, a stripper, or completely done with sex work. Even Vanessa del Rio, who retired decades ago, makes appearances at porn conventions and is active on social media websites. Lauren Phoenix left her mark in the porn industry and her retirement won't make that go away. Length of time in a porn stars career is just irrelevant in regards to notability. And don't even get me started on October 1985 Penthouse Pet of the Month and 1986 AVN Best New Starlet Award winner Angel (pornographic actress), who we know absolutely nothing about, not even her birthdate or nationality. Know, I do understand what you're saying. You think that a porn star with a very long career like Nina Hartley is notable and I agree, but you're not going to be able to convince the WP community to include this criteria in PORNBIO, not like it matters anyway's since most porn stars with careers this long have already been inducted into the AVN Hall of Fame or XRCO Hall of Fame, which are both included in the PORNBIO criteria already. If they haven't been inducted they probably will eventually. If I could add a criteria to PORNBIO, it would be "Has a Twitter account with 100,000 followers or more." Trust me, that is a big number for porn stars. I would also include "Has won any fan's choice award." I believe notability guidelines on WP should actually reflect notability by definition of the word and these current guidelines don't, but when I brought these up in an AfD, I was ridiculed for it. I'm just trying to save you the embarrassment. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all points well taken. I thought I was on to something, but you make a good case. My only rebuttal would be that out of hundreds or maybe thousands of new starlets that come and go in a short time, few achieve status like Grey, Lee, or Phoenix. With this in mind, they seem to obviously deserve an article, but how do we get people (Editors and Readers) that don't appreciate this distinction to understand this? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Aaliyah Love[edit]

The article Aaliyah Love has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Only nominations, no awards; no independent, reliable sourcing; no reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ivana Sugar[edit]

The article Ivana Sugar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Only nominations, the"Galaxy Awards" are not even notable, failing the well-known/significant standard; no independent, reliable sourcing; no reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello Hanswar32 and welcome to WP. You are obviously a WP:Good faith editor, but could you please stop edit warring over the inclusion of awards in articles? You are jeopardizing these articles and your edits have already led to the semi-protection of many of them. And this is coming from someone who actually agrees with you and is in favor of including these awards in articles. Just stop it please. It's just not worth it. It's an uphill battle that I am not willing to fight. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rebecca1990. I just find it ridiculous (I'm glad you agree with me) that such awards are considered spam or irrelevant when they actually add value to the article by displaying various achievements. The ones jeopardizing these articles are editors who semi-protect and remove such awards, not us who try to make the article better by adding to its value. As far as I'm aware, these awards meet notability guidelines and are recognized and documented by industry leaders such as AVN. Who is to be trusted more? The opinion of anonymous Wikipedians or the independent leader of the industry in question? In any case, thanks for your message and I appreciate your attempt in resolving this dispute. Hanswar32 (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of... Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_spamming_of_utterly_non-notable_awards_on_porn_star_biographies --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lexi Swallow[edit]

The article Lexi Swallow has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. Negligible reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jessie Volt[edit]

The article Jessie Volt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards meeting PORNBIO standard, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Neither the claimed "Galaxy Award" nor the organization which awards it is even notable, and it therefore fails the "well-known/significant" test in the relevant SNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ana Foxxx[edit]

The article Ana Foxxx has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Christie Stevens[edit]

The article Christie Stevens has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

{{subst:Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Brief, unbilled appearances in online promo videos are not featured performances in notable mainstream media.}}

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Claire Castel[edit]

The article Claire Castel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kennedy Leigh[edit]

The article Kennedy Leigh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No nontrivial reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kortney Kane[edit]

The article Kortney Kane has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Natalia Starr[edit]

The article Natalia Starr has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Raven Rockette[edit]

The article Raven Rockette has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rikki Six[edit]

The article Rikki Six has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. Negligible reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Samantha Saint[edit]

The article Samantha Saint has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Trinity St. Clair[edit]

The article Trinity St. Clair has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. Little reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Diamond Foxxx[edit]

The article Diamond Foxxx has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, only nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Franceska Jaimes[edit]

The article Franceska Jaimes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, only nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Trinity St. Clair for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trinity St. Clair is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity St. Clair until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kennedy Leigh for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kennedy Leigh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Leigh until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alex Gonz[edit]

The article Alex Gonz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Britney Amber[edit]

The article Britney Amber has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. Negligible reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Carla Cox[edit]

The article Carla Cox has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Leilani Leeane for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leilani Leeane is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leilani Leeane until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aiden Starr for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aiden Starr is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiden Starr (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alyssa Branch[edit]

The article Alyssa Branch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical sourcing.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Mostly for putting up with (ahem /\).... :) Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duke University porn star[edit]

Hey Becs, have you been following this at all... Duke University Porn Star? I've added some info in the Tasha Reign article, but she's so new she's not in IMDB or even IAFD. Just the Duke controversy could make for a decent section. Watch and see...? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did hear of that story, but I didn't find out that she had revealed her identity until you mentioned it now. I wouldn't suggest creating an article on her if that's what you're thinking. It would be a waste of your time and it will surely get deleted in accordance with WP:BLP1E. And I don't think she's going to become notable in the future either. According to what I've read on Belle Knox so far, she isn't planning on doing porn as a long-term and/or successful career, she's doing it to pay for her college tuition and will likely stop performing once she graduates. Rebecca1990 (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the same impression I have and hence why I've added the info tangentially to Reigns article and related info in a new section in the Stripper article. I'm thinking about a similar section in Pornographic film actor based in part on above article plus others. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well... Belle Knox, sheesh... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Porn Star
		For your work on porn and sex related articles. Thanks.--109.188.127.241 (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kortney Kane for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kortney Kane is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kortney Kane until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Mercedez and section formatting[edit]

Hi Becs, I should have given you a notice about this, but I've started a conversation regarding the sections and formatting for PornBio articles on the Project Talk Page. I see that you made some changes in the Nina Mercedez article and I understand your reasons (great edit summaries BTW), I'm just trying to get some consensus for how we move forward. To some extent, its my intention for the porn actor articles to be less "specifically just about porn" and preferably about notable people who happen to work in porn. Hence for example the Career section including all of their work history, not just what they've done in the Industry. Make sense? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aaliyah Love for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aaliyah Love is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaliyah Love until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry about Sara Jay page[edit]

I created this page and am shocked at the anti-porn opinions from editors who are supposed to help newbies. Can you look at this page. Do you think I am out of line? I worked very hard on this new article and I would think Sara is being singled out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SARA_JAY Ilovepitts (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very aware of Sara Jay's popularity in the adult industry and I find it shocking that she still isn't considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. And you are correct about the abundance of anti-porn editors on here. I know what it's like to create an article and have inconsiderate editors with an agenda delete your hard work, but unfortunately I can't do anything to help you. Forget about Sara Jay's article for now. If she does win an award (a non-controversial one by the way. Wikipedia's anti-porn editor's have attempted to degrade the value of certain awards, such as Sara Jay's Urban X Awards), gets inducted into the AVN or XRCO Hall of Fame (which will most likely happen eventually because of her length of time in the industry and her popularity and success), or crosses over to mainstream media like Jenna Jameson and Sasha Grey (highly unlikely. And in case you're wondering, no, her current mainstream appearances aren't considered enough by anti-porn editor's), then you can attempt to get approval for restoring the article. Her article is currently locked and can only be recreated by an administrator. For pornography articles, creation protection is the point of no return. I learned that the hard way with Deauxma, another porn star who's article is locked and cannot be created. I worked hard on Deauxma's article, which did pass the notability guideline for porn biographies (WP:PORNBIO) at the time, and aside from editors refusing to allow the article to be restored, they also changed the PORNBIO guideline to exclude nominations and only allow award wins, despite the fact that this contradicts another guideline (WP:ANYBIO). I have created about 100 articles since I started editing in 2012. A dozen of those have been deleted ever since. You are wasting your time with Sara Jay. And there is obviously some sockpuppetry going on as well, and I'm sorry to say this but the suspicions towards you are reasonable, although there is no actual proof that you are the one behind the sockpuppetry. And I'm sorry to inform you that I will not be participating in this discussion because it would be pointless. And also, the fact that you notified me of that discussion might be considered WP:Votestacking. Rebecca1990 (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jynx Maze for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jynx Maze is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jynx Maze (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you![edit]

Hola! How goes it? Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Haze/Allie Haze[edit]

Fair enough, it was the adding of content for one that should have been for the other that prompted the hat notes, but I see your point as well. While were on the subject, anything I can help with? Are there any particular Porn Project ToDo lists that you're working on? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Avluv[edit]

What I see at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Section formatting is you proposing that you like to put Personal life before Awards. What I do not see there is any consensus on that point, and in fact the person who initiated the discussion does not follow that convention in the list of sections as proposed at the end of the discussion. Please don't point me to, much less revert on the basis of, a discussion which offers no consensus in support of your opinion, leaving it only your opinion. And please leave Veronica Avluv alone. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life section[edit]

Hey, I just noticed that you blanked this. Whats up? Do we need better sources? Is it OK for me to do some expansion? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked what? Veronica Avluv's "Personal life" section? It's still in the article, but it's below the awards & nominations section which makes it barely noticeable. It belongs above the awards & nominations section but I kept having my edits reverted every time I moved it and I didn't want to start edit warring. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, and you're right I completely missed it. I'll move it back and update the suggested format on the Project Page. I agree with you that the article should be just like any other BIO. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template question[edit]

Hey Becs, do you remember that template that lets other editors know that someone is doing a major rewrite to an article or section and asks them to refrain from major editing for 24 hours? I've seen it used on a variety of articles, but I can't locate it. Thanks, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In use Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early life sections[edit]

Hi Becs,

I'm not trying to remove "Early life" sections and I have nothing against them. But when there is so little content, I just try to condense where I can. If you'd prefer they stay, I'm all for it. I agree that the porn bios should be formatted much like any other. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Raven Rockette for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raven Rockette is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Rockette until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Foxxx[edit]

Saw your tag, unfortunately I agree. There is info available on her, there's just not much substance that can be translated into content. Anything come of her TLC appearance that you know of? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Marie[edit]

Hello! I saw that article about Phoenix Marie is deleted from the English Wikipedia. This is very terrible. It's about a porn star with a big contribution. In my stays Bulgarian Wikipedia article, but the English is the most important. Interesting and why they deleted it - most of the voices in the discussion are to preserve it. It sucks. However, I will turn harder in editing articles about pornography in the English Wikipedia. Previously I wrote only in Bulgarian.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm really upset that it was deleted. The WP:PORNBIO guideline is too strict and so was the previous one. But I'm not going to fight to restore Phoenix Marie's article. Last time we took porn articles to WP:DRV (Deauxma & Elexis Monroe), the anti-porn users that edit there (the vast majority of DRV participants are anti-porn) not only refused to restore Deauxma and Elexis Monroe's articles, they also changed the PORNBIO guideline to make them fail it. My suggestion is that you never take a porn related article to DRV, ever. It will not be restored and may lead to another PORNBIO change that will result in the deletion of even more WP articles on notable porn stars. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deauxma[edit]

I know with absolute certainty that she does not want her real name in the article. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Bitoni[edit]

now they want to delete this article. It's just terrible. Audrey Bitoni is a significant personality and has a place here. She deserves a Wikipedia article over a number of amateur football players and some terrorists and politicians. It is a popular star in the world.. Greetings from Bulgaria!--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more, but its tough to fight to keep it when her PR is lousy. I keep telling these performers to keep track of this stuff, but so few listen. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBnumber1 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I'm sorry for all the insults and personal attacks hurled at you. I hope they haven't disillusioned you towards the encyclopedia. Tutelary (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Users that have your back and know that you do good work appreciate your efforts... :) Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nicole Aniston for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nicole Aniston is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Madelyn Marie for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Madelyn Marie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madelyn Marie (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cavarrone 08:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 27 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Miles Long page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandingo[edit]

Hey there Rebecca1990! Since you have wrte a lot about pornography and porn actors, i would like to ask you something :) Do you have any imformation about BBC Mandingo? It seems he's not doing porn anymore :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.33.70 (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if he's retired or not, but I removed the claim that he was a "former" porn actor from his article because it was unsourced. Rebecca1990 (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But if you search Frederick Lamont it's all about Mandingo. Btw i would like to expand the new section of his penis but can't find reliable sources, i would be so thankful if you find some.

It doesn't matter. We can't include his real name without a reliable source. Things like IMDb, internet forums, and whatnot aren't reliable sources. Also, we don't usually include information about penis size in people's articles, even if they are porn stars, because there is nothing encyclopedic about it. The only exception I can think of for this is Jonah Falcon, but that is a special circumstance since he holds the world record for largest penis and this is what he is notable for, so it merits inclusion in his article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah i agree that not every pornstar can have a section about his penis, but for example in Mandingo's article we should keep the penis size section, i mean come on that thing is about 30cm and all the attention he got it's just for his genitalia [even New York Post confirms it].

It's me again. I wanted to know if porn actor Mr Biggz can pass the Wikipedia's notability criteria ? Have you ever heard of him? He's not doing porn anymore but he was very popular in the '90s gay porn and then started doing str8 porn.

The notability guideline for porn actors is WP:PORNBIO. I've never heard of Mr Biggz and unless he has won a notable award that is NOT scene related or has been inducted into the AVN and/or XRCO Hall of Fame, he is not notable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SI[edit]

Hello. You participated in a previous discussion. Today opened a new case about this user. If you want to add something then write boldly. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Pipes[edit]

Hey yo. Can you expand this article? ;) He's notable and meets the porn actor citeria. Thnx --Croxx036 (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You can use this for the Awards and nominations section [2]. --Croxx036 (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a coincidence, I was about to create that article myself too. I had already organized an awards and nominations table for it. Rebecca1990 (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hah thanks a lot xx Btw is there any free pic of him? --Croxx036 (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but if I find one I'll add it to his article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, it's me again. I wanted to create an awards and nominations table for Tommy Gunn's article but got tired :| Can you add his AVN nominations from 2011-15 [3] --Croxx036 (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that someone with that many wins doesn't need all nominations listed. Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning behind the reverts. It's much appreciated. It can be easy just to revert an edit and not talk to the user. TheDutchMan13 (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Diesel AfD - Default to delete?[edit]

Have you ever seen a justification like this before? Considering who was involved, I'm surprised that it wasn't closed as "no action". --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but if the article was deleted at AfD, it will not be restored at DRV. I've learned NEVER to take a porn related article to DRV. It's a complete waste of time and will not be restored. Perhaps he'll win an award (non-scene/ensemble of course) in the future or be inducted in the AVN/XRCO Hall of Fame and we can recreate the article. Until then, just leave things the way they are. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think its worth asking Malik or another Admin to Userfy it? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally wait until he wins an award first. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody roll the clock back? The AfD is open again... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urban X Awards[edit]

Can you give me the full nomination list of Urban X Awards 2009? --Croxx036 (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Tommy Gunn[edit]

I have created List of awards and nominations received by Tommy Gunn. Please add sources and links to pornstarts pages. Thnx in advance! XO --Croxx036 (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rocco Reed[edit]

Expand this article please. --Croxx036 (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know i'm writing you too much but you're the only who can do it the best. I would be so grateful if you expand C.J. Wright's article and find a free pic for it. These can help you maybe [5], [6]. --Croxx036 (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please write about him :(( I really would like to see more on his wikipage. You should watch some of his scenes, he's an amazing guy and got a very delicious a$$ <3 --Croxx036 (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August Ames[edit]

Hey, thanks for your help on the August Ames page and the picture. Conerning her ethnicity, I provided a youtube link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxHH8QAzH3o) where she discusses being a quarter African American, although the iafd page does list her as just Polish and Canadian. I understand that youtube links are discouraged, but it was the only information where her African American heritage is recognized. Do you think the link would be ok or is it better if I wait until they update the iafd or imdb pages (or another reliable source) with her full ethnicity and leave it be as Polish for now? Thanks, Kinfoll1993 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be left out of her article until we can find a better source than Youtube. I'm not even sure if she can really be "African American" like she said. Isn't the proper term in her case Black Canadian? That Youtube video is also the only instance I've found where she claims to be black. Every other time she has discussed her ethnicity, she has only said that she is Polish. ([7], [8], [9]) Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd that she only mentioned it once. I guess it's like you said, she probably doesn't consider herself black since she is predominantly of Polish descent. I was using the term African American as her ethnic origin in the same way as Polish, but I suppose Black Canadian would be more accurate as it reflects her identity and not her grandparent's identity. I'll wait until there's a more reliable source when and if she acknowledges or identifies with her black ancestry to add it. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Mercedez[edit]

I'm particularly concerned with HW's Edit summaries as they come across as Personal Attacks [10][11]. This is getting tedious when he makes no attempt to communicate, just delete and run. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I don't understand why he's removing that info and calling it "spam". How are her occupations, mainstream source coverage, and the awards she has won, "spam"? Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I can offer is that he's a bit "moody" and seems to edit in phases, on and off. From statements he's made in the past, he lives in the UK and is an older gentleman since he talks about his grandchildren. I've wondered if he is of Indian descent given some of the articles he works on, but otherwise there's not much indication of how he's come to his opinion about PORNBIO articles, but it does go back almost a decade. Maybe its an "anti-Jimbo Wales" thing since that's how Jimbo got his start, an adult site. I've seen him try to make similar edits in articles about mainstream actors and personalities only to see him reverted because those articles had more Editors patrolling them. Fewer people patrol the Porn ones, so its easier for him to get his way. Every so often, he ticks off just enough Users (including Admins) that he gets a "slap on the wrist" like when his Talk page was archived for him a few months back. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had the opportunity to re-familiarize myself with WP:NOTABLE lately and it pretty clearly states that it does not apply to "content" in the same manner it does to the subject. In fact it specifically says, "Content coverage within a given article... ...is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." here. Based on this, I don't see how the mention of an award win or nomination, however minor, seems to violate either policy. Calling it SPAM or promotional is more of an opinion than an interpretation of policy. Every time I see a list article for a mainstream celebrity or a Bollywood actor that is "List of awards won by..." I wonder how these are OK, but anything other than AVN, XBIZ, and such in a PORNBIO is not. Your thoughts? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Khalifa[edit]

I was wondering if you would be interested in being involved in a AfD for Mia Khalifa? I think sources suggest she is clearly notable, but currently does not pass WP:PORNBIO, but passed WP:BIO which is why Pornbio need to be reconstructed, way too exclusive in my opinion. What other editors do you know would be interested in participating? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C.J. Wright[edit]

Rebecca, please let's write about him <3 I'm dreaming about him all day all night. You should watch his movies he's so handsome, i'm pretty sure you'll like him. Waiting your answer XO --Croxx036 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MimeFreak[edit]

Hello, how are you? I just noticed that you're editing most of the pornography realted articles and wanted to ask you a question. Is MimeFreak notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article? He's a director. --46.130.81.224 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with Mimefreak, but I don't think he's notable. He hasn't won any awards that I'm aware of. Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm okay. You probably know about BOZ i guess, what would you say about him? Can he considered a notable porn actor? I would love to create an article about him. --46.130.3.165 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any porn biography article that you create on someone who hasn't won at least one well known/significant award that is not a scene relate/ensemble category will most likely be deleted. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peta Jensen/Scarlett Reid[edit]

Wow, this girls popularity is rising like a rocket... http://www.freeones.com/baberank/

I hope she wins something so we can write an article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Pumper[edit]

Add sources to the Awards and nominations section please. --Croxx036 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kendra Lust[edit]

Hey, I saw that you reverted some changes I made in the article, I like the other photo better, but it's good anyway. You seems to have made many contributions here, are you part of any project? I'm looking for some articles to improve. I recently made some improvements on Kelly Divine and Dana Vespoli, what do you think? Bmurso (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lea Lexis for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lea Lexis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lea Lexis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superman vs. Spider-Man XXX: A Porn Parody[edit]

Expand this please Superman vs. Spider-Man XXX: A Porn Parody. --Croxx036 (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving it. Also upload the cover please. --Croxx036 (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice if you expand this article too. --Croxx036 (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table issue[edit]

Hi Rebecca1990, I wanted to apologize for earlier - I spent alot of time merging everything in to one table and so I got aerated at you basically reverting (Plus I've had laptop issues which haven't helped),
Unfortunately I tend to get annoyed easily IRL and here although today was on another level!,
Anyway all that aside I shouldn't of lost it like I did so I sincerely apologize,
Have a great day and Happy Editing , –Davey2010^Talk 23:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. Strokes[edit]

J. Strokes is waiting you to edit his article :* --Croxx036 (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable or not?[edit]

Hello Rebecca1990. I new here and i found your name in the history page of Chanel Preston. It seems you know a lot about pornography and can say which porn actor is notable and which not. I want to create an article about African-American porn actor Jason Brown but i don't know if on Wikipedia he's not notable or not. If that's not hard for you please check his awards and nominations to see if he can pass the notability guideline. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASAP Travis (talk • contribs) 12:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, he does not meet the notability guidelines. I checked all AVN/XBIZ/XRCO winners from 2005 (the year he started doing porn) to 2015. He hasn't won anything. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move articles without RM[edit]

Rebecca1990 moved page Kent Larson (pornographic actor) to Kent Larson (actor): ...please this is highly controversial, so please use RM mechanism In ictu oculi (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this one too 02:20, 26 April 2015‎ Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (4,585 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Rebecca1990 moved page Eric Edwards (pornographic actor) to Eric Edwards (actor): Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (undo | thank) In ictu oculi (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

   16:44, 27 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Kent Larson (pornographic actor) to Talk:Kent Larson (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   16:44, 27 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Kent Larson (pornographic actor) to Kent Larson (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   21:17, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Steve Cruz (pornographic actor) to Talk:Steve Cruz (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   21:17, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Steve Cruz (pornographic actor) to Steve Cruz (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   20:30, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:John Leslie (pornographic actor) to Talk:John Leslie (director) (Spent most of his career directing (1987-2010; 23 years) than performing (approx. 15 years with exclusion of 90s/2000s "performing" credits that are mostly compilation/nonsex)) (revert)
   20:30, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page John Leslie (pornographic actor) to John Leslie (director) (Spent most of his career directing (1987-2010; 23 years) than performing (approx. 15 years with exclusion of 90s/2000s "performing" credits that are mostly compilation/nonsex)) (revert)
   04:19, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Angel (pornographic actress) to Talk:Angel (actress) over redirect (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress) over (pornographic actress). See talk pages for Aja (actress), Chloe (actress), & April O'Neil (actress).)
   04:19, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Angel (pornographic actress) to Angel (actress) over redirect (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress) over (pornographic actress). See talk pages for Aja (actress), Chloe (actress), & April O'Neil (actress).)
   04:16, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Christian Taylor (pornographic actor) to Talk:Christian Taylor (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   04:16, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Christian Taylor (pornographic actor) to Christian Taylor (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   04:15, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Chuck Barron (pornographic actor) to Talk:Chuck Barron (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   04:15, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Chuck Barron (pornographic actor) to Chuck Barron (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   04:13, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Chris Green (pornographic actor) to Talk:Chris Green (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   04:13, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Chris Green (pornographic actor) to Chris Green (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   04:12, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Joe Foster (pornographic actor) to Talk:Joe Foster (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   04:12, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Joe Foster (pornographic actor) to Joe Foster (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   04:07, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Jeremy Hall (pornographic actor) to Talk:Jeremy Hall (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   04:07, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Jeremy Hall (pornographic actor) to Jeremy Hall (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   03:55, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Adam Wilde (pornographic actor) to Talk:Adam Wilde (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   03:55, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Adam Wilde (pornographic actor) to Adam Wilde (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   03:43, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Thomas Lloyd (pornographic actor) to Talk:Thomas Lloyd (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   03:43, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Thomas Lloyd (pornographic actor) to Thomas Lloyd (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   03:41, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:John Davenport (pornographic actor) to Talk:John Davenport (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   03:41, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page John Davenport (pornographic actor) to John Davenport (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   03:23, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Brad Armstrong (pornographic actor) to Talk:Brad Armstrong (director) (Is more of a director than a performer. Has received awards mostly for directing.) (revert)
   03:23, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Brad Armstrong (pornographic actor) to Brad Armstrong (director) over redirect (Is more of a director than a performer. Has received awards mostly for directing.)
   03:15, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Jake Bass (pornographic actor) to Talk:Jake Bass (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   03:15, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Jake Bass (pornographic actor) to Jake Bass (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:57, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Pavel Novotný (pornographic actor) to Talk:Pavel Novotný (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:57, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Pavel Novotný (pornographic actor) to Pavel Novotný (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:45, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Will Clark (pornographic actor) to Talk:Will Clark (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:45, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Will Clark (pornographic actor) to Will Clark (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:39, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Rafe (pornographic actor) to Talk:Rafe (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:39, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Rafe (pornographic actor) to Rafe (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:38, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Benjamin Bradley (pornographic actor) to Talk:Benjamin Bradley (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:38, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Benjamin Bradley (pornographic actor) to Benjamin Bradley (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:36, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Jerry Butler (pornographic actor) to Talk:Jerry Butler (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:36, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Jerry Butler (pornographic actor) to Jerry Butler (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:34, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Chris Steele (pornographic actor) to Talk:Chris Steele (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:34, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Chris Steele (pornographic actor) to Chris Steele (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:33, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Mark Dalton (pornographic actor) to Talk:Mark Dalton (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:33, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Mark Dalton (pornographic actor) to Mark Dalton (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:31, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Jason Ross (pornographic actor) to Talk:Jason Ross (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:31, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Jason Ross (pornographic actor) to Jason Ross (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:28, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Michael Morrison (pornography) to Talk:Michael Morrison (actor) (better title) (revert)
   02:28, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Michael Morrison (pornography) to Michael Morrison (actor) (better title) (revert)
   02:25, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Aaron Lawrence (entrepreneur) to Talk:Aaron Lawrence (actor) (seems like a more appropriate title) (revert)
   02:25, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Aaron Lawrence (entrepreneur) to Aaron Lawrence (actor) (seems like a more appropriate title) (revert)
   02:22, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Jack Simmons (pornographic actor) to Talk:Jack Simmons (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)
   02:22, 26 April 2015 Rebecca1990 (talk | contribs) moved page Jack Simmons (pornographic actor) to Jack Simmons (actor) (Overwhelming consensus favoring (actress/actor) over (pornographic actress/actor). See Talk:Aja (actress) & Talk:Chloe (actress).) (revert)

........Good grief. Please put all of these back or I will be reporting you to ANI. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi, please do not make threats on User Talk pages or WE will report you at ANI. Any Autoconfirmed User has WP:Move ability granted to their account rights, they don't need your permission to move anything. Please drop the WP:STICK and move on. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the royal "WE", Chris, or do you have a tapeworm? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfie! How are ya? Oh wait, what was the pet name I gave you... Bobby, Billy... eh, Wolfie works. What's up? You've been so quiet lately, I was starting to think that your grandkids were monopolizing all of your time. Actually Rebecca thanked me for my edit and the "We" was me offering my support to her. Besides, I only refer to my tape worm by its pet name. Her page is already lengthy and Oculi's post didn't help things. Hey, remember when your Talk page was forcibly archived by an admin[12]? Good stuff, fun times....

Being supportive of the lady-folk is quite de rigueur on WP these days. Haven't you been following the WP:GGTF? Not that Rebecca isn't perfectly capable of defending herself from the trolls and other lower things.

Take care now you Warm, Fuzzy, Old Curmudgeon... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Becs, it's your page. I'm not going to revert war over something that seems like a sensible thing. I'll leave it as it is. The code is there if you want to reduce the visibility of the "data splatter". --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of certain porn awards[edit]

Thank you for starting this long overdue discussion [13], but it would be more appropriate if you wait until its conclusion by giving sufficient opportunity for editors to weigh in before going ahead and immediately applying edits based off your own suggestion a mere one day later. Hanswar32 (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.. It is evident that the Cytherea RFC may not be closed by an involved editor, and your insistence that live sex shows are not "adult entertainment is utter nonsense. Your failure to edit in good faith is again becoming evident. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism is NOT edit warring. Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rodney Moore (pornographic actor)[edit]

If you continue to re-open a closed move discussion on this page, it may be seen as disruptive. There is a procedure called WP:Move review that you might consider. The eight new moves you made on 31 May about 'pornographic actor' also look bad. This is probably heading to ANI if you don't stop. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

WikiLove[edit]

Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thanks for your work on Casey Calvert (actress). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Driller[edit]

Hey. I would be so thankful if you expand this article --> Ryan Driller. --Croxx036 (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Cummings[edit]

Hey someone nominated my article about Cody Cummings for deletion. He's deftly notable to have his own wikipedia article as he won a notable award (Cybersocket Web Award). I suggest you to write your opinion about it in this page. --Croxx036 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Croxx036, you cannot just go around notifying users about deletion discussions taking place, this is called WP:Votestacking and it is against the rules. Rebecca1990 (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Castle[edit]

Hello. Why don't you create an article for pornographic actor Johnny Castle? He's notable according to the Wikipedia rule and deserve to have his article here :)

I've created the article; Johnny Castle (actor)! Expand it if you want. --Croxx036 (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

[14] Do you know the names of the ppl in this vid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zech1234 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also would love to know the name of the boy. Please Rebecca if you really know then write. Thank you in advance. --Croxx036 (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C.J. Wright[edit]

Hey. If you have free time please expand the article of C.J. Wright. He's an amazing pornstar and i would like to see more about him on Wikipedia. I've notice in many articles you're using interviews to expand the Personal life or Early life sections. I found an interview of Wright, which might help you while writing his background [15]. Thanks in advance and sorry for asking that much. --Croxx036 (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alexis Ford[edit]

The article Alexis Ford has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards. Only reliably sourced biographical information concerns her marriage to her husband, who does not have an article, appears NN, and would fall under NOTINHERITED.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Natalia Starr for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Natalia Starr is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Starr until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ash Hollywood for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ash Hollywood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Hollywood until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article[edit]

Hello User:Rebecca1990. I see you're interested in pornography that's cool. Would like to join me in expanding any pornographic actor's article and nominate it for a joint good article? :) --Ariana(5A) (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandingo (actor)[edit]

Rebecca, someone is removing sourced content from Mandingo (actor) which i've added. Please do something, he doesn't understand anything. --Croxx036 (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Lux[edit]

Hi. Regarding your edit to the above article. Could you please explain? Your edit summary was blank. Or perhaps this was an error? Cheers.--173.35.178.65 (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello. I'm newcomer in this site and i noticed you in Wesley Pipes' page. I just wanted to know if you can help me adding content to his page. Thank you :) --WesleyPipes FanGirl (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

It's not something I work on but I've seen some of your edits related to the porn industry and I think that your contributions are of great value. Keep doing what you do. --Rose (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Anjanette Astoria for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anjanette Astoria is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjanette Astoria until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Akira interview with Chris Jericho.[edit]

Hello, I posted this on another talk page but the user never responded. Asa Akira was interviewed by Chris Jericho on October 3, 2014. She discussed her book and life. The interview was great which is why I included it in there. I also posted source next to the explanation. it's OK if it never makes it but just wanted to leave the source and link incase you'd like to listen to it. Thank you.

youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwPtSIFD0rA

Source: Chris Jericho's show is Talk is Jericho sponsored by Podcast one. The Episode is 79 dated October 3, 2014 http://podcastone.com/Talk-Is-Jericho?showAllEpisodes=true

Tommy Gunn (actor)[edit]

Hey. Do you know any mainstream media reference to this porn star? --Croxx036 (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Franceska Jaimes for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Franceska Jaimes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franceska Jaimes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Shyla Stylez[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Shyla Stylez, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —teb728 t c 06:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kendra Lust[edit]

The article Kendra Lust has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards or nominations (by repeated AFD and DRV consensus, niche categories like "MILF Performer" do not meet the well-known/significant standard of PORNBIO). Little to no independent reliable sourcing. Negligible biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Diamond Foxxx for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diamond Foxxx is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Foxxx until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Botton Rotten reverts[edit]

Please visit the talk page for Bonnie Rotten to discuss your reversions, one of which I have undone. Thanks. Nicmart (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Your recent editing history at Dani Daniels shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
That you "justify" your practice across multiple articleswith sources that characterize it as intellectually dishonest and explicitly racist is remarkably absurd. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing properly sourced info from articles is vandalism. Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Dani Daniels, Karen Summer, and Kendra Lust: Many MAINSTREAM sources have made it clear that "interracial" means white female/black male within the porn industry. The Daily Beast made it clear that porn viewers (which is almost all readers of porn biographies) also know this ("consumers searching for “interracial” movies have come to expect black guy/white woman action" & "to update and/or change how porn categorizes interracial now might be too confusing for consumers"). For those few readers who might not know this, sentences mentioning the first interracial scenes for Daniels, Summer, and Lust in their articles don't link to Interracial sex, they link to Interracial pornography, which states what interracial within the porn industry means. Same thing with many other porn genres. If a porn biography article mentions when a porn star did their first bisexual threesome scene, most users will know that the porn industry's definition of bisexual is 2 men/1 woman, not 2 women/1 man. For those few users that don't know this, the sentence mentioning the performer's first bisexual threesome scene should include a link to Bisexual pornography. I understand that the names given to some porn genres like interracial and bisexual can be confusing and I agree that mentions of a performer's debut in a genre should contain a link to the article on that genre. The sentence "She did her first interracial sex scene in [Insert film title here]" provides a link to the WP article on the porn genre explaining what it means, therefore, the statement is accurate. Scenes with black women simply don't count as interracial porn. Black man = "interracial" and black woman = "ebony". The meaning of the phrase "Blue-eyed soul" can easily be mistaken as soul music performed by blue-eyed artists, but actually means R&B/soul music performed by white artists, regardless of their eye color. I doubt you or anyone else would remove mentions of blue-eyed soul work from WP articles on blue-eyed soul musicians who don't have blue eyes just because they don't meet the literal meaning of the phrase.

No. The mainstream sources you cite have pointed out that one porn marketing strategy is racist and dishonest. It also derogates LGBT sex to the point of being homophobic. You can embrace dishonest racist marketing at your job and in your private life, but you may not use Wikipedia to promote racist marketing strategies or use Wikipedia's editorial voice to promote them.

Those articles did not "point out" that interracial = white woman/black man is racist. That was nothing but the personal OPINIONS of the journalists that wrote the articles along with porn performers/directors, etc. they quoted, not FACTS. Saying that criticism of porn defining interracial as white woman/black man exists is no valid argument for your removal of content from articles. Those sources also did the exact opposite of claiming that interracial porn was marketed dishonestly. It was made clear that "consumers searching for “interracial” movies have come to expect black guy/white woman action". Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more plainly hypocritical? The sources you chose are factual when they are used to support your arguments but are merely opinions when they support my arguments. That's ridiculous on its face. And there's no dispute, none whatsoever, that no one but the porn industry misuses the English-language term with a plain and long-established meaning the way you want Wikipedia to. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Keisha Grey (and Dani Daniels, Karen Summer, Kendra Lust): A porn star's first times are a major event in their careers and should be mentioned in a biography on their careers. It's so important, that in Grey's case, her firsts make up half of her AVN scene award nominations, and in Daniels's case, her first boy/girl film (Dani Daniels Dare) made up over half of her 2013 AVN nominations and her first interracial film won the best interracial movie awards at both AVN and XBIZ in addition to an AVN scene award. A porn star's debut in a genre is worthy of notice, just like a musician's debut in a different music genre from the one they started out in is worthy of notice in their articles.

No. Such claims require reliable independent sourcing. You present none. We do not, as a general rule, present such claims for other performers. The most comparable example, "first nude scene" for female actors, was wiped out years ago. All you are doing is presenting dubious marketing hype. Once again, you may do this on the job, but not on Wikipedia.

3. Riley Reid: A schoolgirl outfit does not violate WP:WikiProject Pornography#Structure for porn biographies ("note that images should not be explicit in nature, unless an explicit image is necessary for the article subject. Pictures with the genitals, bust, or buttocks of the person exposed should not be posted, nor should there be pictures posted of the person engaging in sex acts. Pictures should not include the person covered in any bodily fluids, including semen"). Reid isn't the only one wearing a schoolgirl outfit in her WP photo. Belle Knox is a highly edited article with contributions from many different editors and I don't think her photo caused any controversy among users. The schoolgirl outfit photo of Reid is the most recent/highest quality photo we have of her and the one you insist on having in her article is older, crooked (which is ok for social media like Instagram, not WP, unless it is the only available free photo, which is not the case with Reid), and low quality/slightly blurry. While you were wasting your time with all this, you could have browsed other articles and reverted this earlier, an image that actually is inappropriate for WP, which was added by a single-purpose account and went unnoticed for three weeks. Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop dissembling. Your Belle Knox analogy is inappropriate and dishonest. A nineteen-year-old girl dressing up as a college student is hardly the same thing as a mid-20-s woman pretending to be a teenager. Multiple editors objected to the image you prefer and support a particular alternative. Your supposed aesthetic opinion doesn't entitle you to impose your choice when the majority of editors who've weighed in prefer a different one. You're edit warring to promote a WP:OWN violation. As for your aspersions, there's a mighty judgment coming. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, your response to my argument is basically to falsely accuse me of being a publicist rather than an actual rebuttal to the content? And your explanation of why Knox's schoolgirl outfit is ok while Reid's isn't makes no sense. You referred to the image as "faux kiddie porn", which indicates that you believed it was sexually explicit content, not that you had a problem with Reid wearing a costume of something she is not. Even if you do for some arbitrary reason oppose the use of images with costumes, if you can't cite a guideline supporting your position, then you have no argument. And your claim that "multiple editors objected to the image you prefer and support a particular alternative" is false. First of all, the image was initially added by an SPA IP, which is the furthest thing from an editor. Secondly, a user saying "at least format it properly if you are going to change it" is not an endorsement of the image. He was obviously indifferent to the image itself and only commented on the formatting. Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you acknowledge you're adding racist, dishonest, LGBT-phobic marketing hype to articles, but that's OK because WOLFOWITZ BAD. You're making up arguments that I've never advanced. And, for the record, you've dishonestly represented the comment of mine that you quoted. I didn't say the disputed image was "faux kiddie porn", I said it was used to "promote faux kiddie porn", the practice of female porn performers well beyond their teens dressing up as schoolgirls for the sexual gratification of fetishist consumers. Which you shouldn't use Wikipedia promote, since it's a commercial enterprise. In the immortal words of Bob Dole, "Stop lying about my record". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's promotional because Reid happens to be wearing a schoolgirl outfit? What will you do next? Remove any image from a biography article if the person in it is wearing clothing that happens to have a visible fashion designer logo? Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's promotional because it's part of a staged promotional appearance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia to promote dishonest, racist marketing schemes is intolerable behavior[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Karen Summer. Inserting factually inaccurate statements into a BLP is wholly unacceptable. Accusing an editor who removes such statements is utterly dishonest. Your expressed belief that such behavior is OK because it's consistent with a marketing scheme that your own sources acknowledge is racist and dishonest is hard to see as being adanced in good faith.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Ethnic pornography. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ethnic pornography shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The fact that you cite opinion pieces which discuss only the phrase's use by marketers demonstrates that it is obviously wrong to state that the marketer's code word meaning is privileged over the longstanding meaning in general and scholarly discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to give a 3RR warning but... I can see that's been done. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll give a 3RR on Riley Reid also then. Really. Talk it over on the article talk before reverting each other. I also gave the same warning to the Wolf. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ryan Driller (January 16)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ryan Driller and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rebecca1990 reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: ). Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ryan Driller (January 17)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bearcat was:

A person does not get over WP:PORNBIO just because you claim that they get over PORNBIO -- nor can winning an XBIZ award be sourced only to XBIZ's own website. It takes reliable source coverage about him to get him over PORNBIO, not primary source mentions on the website of the organization that granted the award.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ryan Driller and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bearcat (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your knowledge and judgement of good photography and willingness to defend it. Glenn Francis (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Reid[edit]

I'll get a new picture of Riley this week at AVN. Glenn Francis (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Flower's Squirt Shower[edit]

The article Flower's Squirt Shower has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails NFILM and the GNG. Award clearly not major or related to excellence. Negligible reliable independent coverage/sourcing.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Flower's Squirt Shower for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Flower's Squirt Shower is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower's Squirt Shower until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of my edit to Dani Daniels[edit]

Hi there! Both Daniels and Mia are female adult entertainers of Czech ancestry... Don't you think that's enough? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 14:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Vinther, no, it's not enough. There are 12 Czech porn stars with WP articles and at least two other American porn stars of Czech descent. We can't have a list of 14 porn stars in Daniels's "See also" section when they share no similarities besides being Czech and a porn star. Daniels also has English and German ancestry, doesn't mean we should add all 35 English porn stars and all 25 German porn stars to her "See also" section. And if you add every American porn star of English and German descent to it, that "See also" list would likely surpass 100. WP:SEEALSO states "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." "See also" sections are for very similar topics. For example, Lex the Impaler and Mandingo Massacre are both porn series featuring one African-American male porn star and both have the same director. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ryan Driller has been accepted[edit]

Ryan Driller, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sammy1339 (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Keira Nicole[edit]

The article Keira Nicole has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No non-trivial biographical content. "Best Actress—Couples-Themed Release" is a recently created, little-noted award category with no discernible selection criteria; in fact. "Couples-Themed Release" is an arbitrary/meaningless category -- the term gets no GBooks hits, and virtually all, if not all, the Ghits relate to this or related award categories, not do any topic with independent meaning. Even if this might get a technical, tenuous PORNBIO pass, that is outweighed by the utter failure to even remotely approach meeting the GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Romi Rain[edit]

Hi I wasn't planning on creating a page for Romi Rain though I did wonder why she didn't have a wikipedia page. She has won a few awards so she does meet the notability guidelines I would think. Anyway, I already proposed deletion of the Elsa Jean article. For Megan Rain, she is new so she hasn't won any awards as of yet but she has many nominations especially for big categories like best Starlet and Best Newcomer, and she is moderately popular for a porn star. Thank you very much and please suggest any edits which can help me.:)-Akhila3151996 (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Bentley[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Samantha Bentley. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
It is a BLP/RS basic that announcements of future events cannot establish that the events actually took place. You are also refusing to follow the WP:BRD process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of properly sourced content is vandalism. Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Your recent editing history at AVN Award for Female Performer of the Year shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at AVN Award for Female Performer of the Year. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rebecca1990 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz changed the format at AVN Award for Female Performer of the Year without providing a guideline that supported his change. There appears to be no guideline regarding the manual of style for award category articles, since the formats vary slightly by article, but none of the articles I browsed through had the nominees separated by a comma. In fact, the separation by comma format is unreadable to me personally. As for the use of photos in award articles, it just makes more sense to include all winners instead of choosing some at random. I think photos should also be included within the table so they can be right next to the relevant year and avoid a mess like the one at Grammy Award for Best New Artist (where photos aren't even in the right order by year and make it down to the article's references). I suggested a compromise by putting nominees in small font (like in example provided by Tabercil) and reducing the image sizes, since Hullaballoo Wolfowitz referred to them as "oversized". My last edit to the article was not "an attempt to evade 3RR limits", it was a compromise, which neither Tabercil nor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have opposed so far. User Sammy1339 has supported my edit as well. I promise to take this or any other disputes to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography for input by others before reverting and I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Most of what you say amounts to defending your edit-warring on the grounds that you think your edits were justified. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. I am also unwilling to make allowances, because you have been warned numerous times about edit-warring, over a period extending over a period of at least nine months. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ryan Driller (February 15)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ryan Driller and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AVN Award for Female Performer of the Year[edit]

I don't believe you deserved to be blocked, but at any rate...is there a reason why you removed the section headings? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It just seemed unnecessary, since it didn't increase readability of the list. Academy Award for Best Actor is three times as old as AVN FPOTY, so their listing is obviously much longer, and it isn't separated by every five years, but it's still readable. If you really want to separate the winners, wouldn't it make more sense to do it by decade instead of every five years? There seems to be no official manual of style for award category articles, since formats vary by article, but the only separations I can find are by decade (e.g. Grammy Award for Best New Artist). Rebecca1990 (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jenni993/Isiah Maxwell[edit]

Hello. I see you're writing articles about pornography. I've created a draft for Isiah Maxwell, an African-American pornographic actor, but before i will move it to namespace, could you please check it if something is missing or if it meets the Wikipedia standarts? Thank you in advance. --Jenni993 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenni993, sorry, but now is not the right time to create this article. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and will be deleted if created at this time. By the way, I'm glad you asked me first. Please continue asking in the future as well before creating any porn-related articles. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm well ok. Thanks for your time anyway. --Jenni993 (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016[edit]

Your recent editing history at Alexis Amore shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You are engaged in an edit war on Amber Rayne also with 3 revert. Give it a break for a bit. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Keira Nicole for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Keira Nicole is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keira Nicole until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions[edit]

Hello, Rebecca. I must admit that I'm quite puzzled with all these deletions of porn star articles. I can understand the ratio behind it (lack of notability, only nominations without any awards won, etc) but it still looks bad to me, especially with stars like Audrey Bitoni, Madison Ivy, Sarah Vandella... --Sundostund (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nicole Aniston for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nicole Aniston is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rikki Six for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rikki Six is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rikki Six until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Prince Yahshua[edit]

The article Prince Yahshua has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Scene awards and Urban X awards do not contribute to notability; niche award fails the well-known/significant standard. Negligible biographical content. Negligible independent sourcing. Even if the niche award is seen as a technical PORNBIO pass, consensus has been established that a BLP falling well below GNG requirements should be deleted. Coverage of a recurring "penile injury" falls into BLP1E territory.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sascha (actor) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sascha (actor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sascha (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lovette (actress) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lovette (actress) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovette (actress) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Flesh Hunter[edit]

The article Flesh Hunter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability: article does not cite reliable secondary sources. The page is cited to directory listings and industry award information. Even if the awards were not PR driven (of which I'm not convinced), they do not overcome the lack of RS that discuss the topic directly & in detail , as needed to avoid WP:WHYN.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Squirtwoman for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Squirtwoman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squirtwoman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Flesh Hunter for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Flesh Hunter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flesh Hunter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Flower's Squirt Shower for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Flower's Squirt Shower is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at here until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela White[edit]

Hi Rebecca,

I see that we have common goals. I am already trying to work out how we can talk away from here but I imagine that is impossible.

Anyway I have contributed most of what is Angela White’s Wikipedia but I was hoping you could assist me with it. It seems the more people working on it, the safer it is.

I won’t be able to work as quickly as you do but I am more than happy and want to help you with your projects.

Thank you

Lach23 (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Britney Amber for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Britney Amber is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britney Amber until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Asa Akira Is Insatiable for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Asa Akira Is Insatiable is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asa Akira Is Insatiable until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Rebecca1990. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Natalia Starr for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Natalia Starr is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Starr (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Natalia Starr[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Natalia Starr requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 71.187.6.198 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Island Fever (film series) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Island Fever (film series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island Fever (film series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Layla Rivera for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Layla Rivera is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layla Rivera until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Leilani Leeane for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leilani Leeane is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leilani Leeane (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Abella Danger for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abella Danger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abella Danger until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ryan Conner for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ryan Conner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Conner (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Samantha Bentley for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Samantha Bentley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Bentley until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would come back[edit]

I wish you would come back Glenn Francis (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ukrainian male pornographic film actors[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Ukrainian male pornographic film actors requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:New Zealand pornographic film actors[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:New Zealand pornographic film actors requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ariana (actress) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ariana (actress) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariana (actress) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nikki Delano for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nikki Delano is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Delano until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mia Malkova for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mia Malkova is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Malkova (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cayenne Klein for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cayenne Klein is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cayenne Klein until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kleio Valentien[edit]

The article Kleio Valentien has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Just another porn-related BLP without any independent reliable sourcing or any legitimate assertion of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Riley Reid for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Riley Reid is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riley Reid (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Priya Anjali Rai for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Priya Anjali Rai is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Anjali Rai until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nikki Delano for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nikki Delano is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Delano (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jillian Janson for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jillian Janson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jillian Janson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Abella Danger for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abella Danger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abella Danger (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Keisha Grey for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Keisha Grey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keisha Grey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kleio Valentien for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kleio Valentien is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleio Valentien until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of awards and nominations received by Asa Akira for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of awards and nominations received by Asa Akira is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Rocco Siffredi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

This is a group AfD. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Samantha Saint for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Samantha Saint is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Saint until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dani Daniels for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dani Daniels is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani Daniels until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Veronica Avluv for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Veronica Avluv is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Avluv until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Brandy Aniston for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brandy Aniston is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandy Aniston until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Adriana Chechik for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adriana Chechik is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Chechik until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Haze GA Reassessment[edit]

Jenna Haze, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Whiteguru (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kendra Lust for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kendra Lust is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendra Lust until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Brooklyn Lee for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brooklyn Lee, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Lee until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Adriana Chechik for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adriana Chechik is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Chechik (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Indian pornographic film actresses[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Indian pornographic film actresses indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 18:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Indian pornographic film actors[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Indian pornographic film actors indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 18:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lauren Phoenix for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lauren Phoenix, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Phoenix until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wasteland (2012 film) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wasteland (2012 film), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasteland (2012 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rocco Reed for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rocco Reed, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocco Reed until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Seasoned Players for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seasoned Players, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seasoned Players until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of AVN Award for Female Performer of the Year for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AVN Award for Female Performer of the Year, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVN Award for Best Actor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Taylor St. Claire for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taylor St. Claire, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor St. Claire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of A.J. Applegate for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A.J. Applegate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.J. Applegate until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]