Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abella Anderson (4th nomination)

Abella Anderson

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Abella Anderson
• Articles for deletion/Abella Anderson (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Abella Anderson (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Abella Anderson (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Abella Anderson (5th nomination)

Abella Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Anderson is not notable as a pornographic actress or as a model. The awards she has won are not notable, and nominations for awards do not count for notability for pornographic performers. The article has been deleted twice in the past, and once survived as no consensus without any strong arguments for keeping it. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO#1 with NightMoves Best New Starlet (Fan's Choice) award, which is well-known/significant and not scene-related/ensemble. In 2002, the St. Petersburg Times noted that the NightMoves Awards were "the third largest in the porn industry". Other porn industry award ceremonies held in 2002 include AVN, XRCO, Venus, and NINFA, which are all considered well-known/significant industry awards by consensus, satisfying PORNBIO ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5] & [6]). If at least two out of the four awards I've listed are smaller than NightMoves and still considered well-known/significant enough to meet PORNBIO, than NightMoves also satisfies PORNBIO. NightMoves is also the porn industry's third longest running awards show. Best New Starlet is a newcomer award, and those have overwhelming consensus favoring their inclusion in PORNBIO. Most participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keri Sable, a recipient of the exact same award, voted to keep the article. Three of the keep votes regarded her NightMoves win as a reason (one by me, the others "per Rebecca1990"). Anderson also passes PORNBIO#3, "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", for her roles in the film Clapping for the Wrong Reasons and the music video 3005 (song), appearances which have generated a lot of mainstream media coverage for her. The fact that all three of her award wins were fan voted is also evidence that she passes WP:ENTERTAINER#2 ("Has a large fan base"). Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Notability is not inherited so these other awards have no relevance and do not transmit notability to anything else. Saying the other awards are "smaller" has no meaning and is imprecise and without context. That is POV.

I think the above editor needs to educate themselves on notability guidelines and policies rather than erecting a wall of irrelevant text. Also, where are the independent reliable sources that say she has a large fan base? And how large? This is conjecture and another POV statement. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO, won 3x individual awards. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 13:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - she has various individual awards (AVN-award is especially notable but Nightmoves is also notable enough), so she clears the hurdles set by WP:PORNBIO + on top of that she has some mainstream media appearances. -- fdewaele, 18 August 2016, 15:36 CET.
• delete the third largest pile of bollocks in a pile of bollocks is still a pile of bollocks. Does this properly pass GNG? No. Then this fails. Any if you want to leave me a civility warning, you can shove that up the same pile of bollocks you are desperately referring to. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment That's not even an argument but just some inane rambling. -- fdewaele, 18 August 2016, 16:50 CET.

• User:Fdewaele's statement is of course inaccurate. User:Spartaz said this obviously fails GNG - and of course it does fail. That's why there are these circumventing arguments above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST, WP:MODEL No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. No noteworthy creative or artistic contribution to the film industry. She is of no historical significance. Not really an actress or actor in films or theater and no way to determine if she has a "cult" following because this is not noted in reliable sources - fails WP:ENTERTAINER.

Saying "Largest" is a nebulous word and has no meaning due to its inaccuracy and imprecision; especially in the context of an audience - and has no meaning in regards to the number of people watching the ceremony - that happens all the time her in the US from high school basketball, to professional baseball, to the National Football League. So, as an aside, she has not won significant film awards as denoted by the current WP:PORNBIO segment on the WP:N WP:BIO page. The NightMoves awards are not significant in this context, and pretty much a straw man. In fact, I can't find any mention of this award on a Google search and or on Google news - and this shows how insignificant these awards are.

Other AfDs (a linked by Rebecca1990) have no bearing on this AfD - and these do not confer Wikipedia wide consensus due to the small number of participants. Does anyone really think 5, 7, or 10 Ivotes changes policy or guidelines and so on? Only Wikipedia-wide RFCs result in Wikipedia-wide consensus. And citing other AfDs is WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. Regarding the Ken Sable AfD mentioned above - it may be that "keep" got the most votes but obviously "delete" had the better policy based arguments. I can't see how disregarding significant coverage in independent reliable sources is acceptable. Also, I agree that the above is simply piling on. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not seeing any sources that demonstrate she has won any of the awards mentioned in the first Ivote. Without reliable sources to back this up, these claims are simply blue wiki links and WP:OR. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC). An industry trade publication (vested interest) and the company produced publication, in the refs, which produces company announcements, are not independent reliable sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete -- trivial fan-based awards and fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. The claimed awards are not substantial enough to outweigh the subject's failure to even approach meeting GNG requirements. "Fan" awards affiliated with more significant awards do not WP:INHERIT either notability or significance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)