Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston (2nd nomination)

Nicole Aniston

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston
• Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston (2nd nomination)

Nicole Aniston (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)

Subject fails PORNBIO due to lack of significant awards; only nominations are present. No significant RS coverage can be found to meet GNG. Previous AfD closed as keep, but sourcing is still unconvincing. As an alternative to deletion, the article can be redirected (after delete) to List of Penthouse Pets. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable porn actress, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 05:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Lacks sufficient independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep  Notability was confirmed at the first AfD, and notability is not temporary.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I don't believe that AfD discussions "confirm notability". Instead, their purpose is to determine consensus on whether an article should be retained or deleted. Such consensus can change. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• So there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability at the previous AfD?  Is that what you believe?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Previous AfD did not include a discussion of sources, for example:

• Keep "Looks to meet WP:GNG [1] for her industry coverage (no pun intended)" (link to Google search)
• Keep "Nom did not present a reason for deletion"
• Keep "Trolling by the nominator"
• Keep "per X & Y"
• Keep "looks to pass GNG", etc.

Thus, the first AfD did not introduce any new sources or offer convincing arguments, just opinions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• So you believe that there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability?  Unscintillating (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• The prior AfD had the appearance of being a vote, rather than a discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• So there was no discussion about notability because it was a vote?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• The prior AfD Ivotes noted by k.e. coffman had some seriously non-policy based arguments. I'm not seeing these as valid arguments for keep. I agree with k.e. coffman, the prior AfD has the appearance of merely being a vote, and of voicing unhelpful opinions.Steve Quinn (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• These editors should have a chance to respond.  @MichaelQSchmidt, Chillum, Scalhotrod, Subtropical-man, VandVictory, and Mojo Hand: Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yet another display of improper WP:CANVASSING. Violations aren't excused because porn is involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"Another" display?  You've not cited any other cases.  Your assertion that this is improper is a proof by assertion, and since when is it improper to notify all of the previous participants in an AfD?  Please cite the evidence.  And the comment that this has something to do with "porn", what has that got to do with anything?  Finally, User:Mojo Hand is an administrator.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding ping @Раціональне анархіст:  for User:Раціональне_анархіст  Unscintillating (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

A simple ping is quite neutral, does not state or imply how anyone else might or might not opine and as such, per behavior guidelines is not a canvas. However, unfounded WP:ADHOM accusations might violate policy WP:CIVIL. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with User:Hullabaloo. To me, this is canvassing. And I don't think Unscintilating actions in this matter are appropriate. H-m-m-m-m maybe I can come with other editors who should also have a chance to respond. H-m-m-m-m let me think....Steve Quinn (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• WP:APPNOTE allows notification of "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Unscintillating did not notify the one Delete !voter in the first AfD, but that user had already !voted here. The guideline I quoted above does not contain the clause, "...unless they all agree with you". Work to change the guideline if you think it needs improvement, but in the meantime we should go with what it says and avoid asserting what it does not say. If there are known Delete supporters from other discussions, they can be notified too, along with all other participants in those discussions, but I don't think failure to go that far constitutes canvassing. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• [[WP:APPNOTE}] also states, "particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior."  Unscintillating (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Winning an award is not the sole criteria for notability. 2,557 page views per day on Wikipedia is very impressive. She is a very popular Performer.

She’s very popular on social media. 273 thousand followers on Twitter. Over 100 thousand followers on Instagram. Over 100 thousand Likes on FaceBook. Glenn Francis (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not a convincing argument and does not address WP:BLP requirements for high quality sources, to wit: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons...such material...must adhere...strictly to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)...be very firm about the use of high-quality sources " (the underline is mine).

Page views are not even considered in any content policies or notability guidelines (per WP:GNG). Asserting she is a popular performer generally or on social media without reliable sources is a POV statement. Twitter is not considered a reliable source per WP:RS (lacks independent reporting standards). Instagram is not considered a reliable source (lacks independent reporting standards), and Facebook is not considered a reliable source (lacks independent reporting standards). To satisfy the requirements for BLP, the subject must have acceptable reliable sourcing RS that bring it to GNG or BIO standards. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per above two comments. 173.70.163.96 (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete the arguments for keep are very unconvincing and do not address BLP requirements for high quality sources. The arguments for keep in the last Afd are also very unconvincing. One editor in the last AfD claims "While nice, non-industry coverage is not a policy nor a guideline." in fact it is very much connected to policy and guidelines because "non-industry coverage" translates into independent coverage which is a requirement for BLP in that it must satisfy GNG or even BIO. The same editor continues with. "It is reasonable that she would receive coverage in and for the industry for which she works". I agree that it is reasonable in the sense of the word, but not reasonable when using this coverage for indicating notability. This person then finishes with "PORNBIO does not supersede the GNG." I believe that is the only correct portion of this particular Ivote.

Another Ivoter in the former AfD said, "Sufficient sources suggests she meets the WP:GNG." Well this actually seems to be a misreading of GNG. It is the type of sources that determine the subject passing GNG. In this case, the sources do not suggest or indicate meeting GNG. Industry related promotional materials are not independent of the subject. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are what is needed. As an aside, she also fails PORNBIO because she has received only nominations. So, there is no way to establish notability for this person. Redirect after delete is acceptable to me. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete She has won no significant awards. There is no significant coverage of her in reliable, independent sources. Neither x number of page views nor x number of social media followers confers notability, and such arguments are based neither in policies nor in guidelines. If those numbers are so impressive (which they aren't), then reliable independent sources would have been so impressed that they would have devoted significant coverage to her (which they haven't). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Right, since notability is never conferred and nothing in policies or guidelines says otherwise.  However, evidence of attention to the topic over a period of time contributes to establishing that a topic is "worthy of notice" as per the lede and nutshell of WP:N.  It is a fallacy to assert what independent reliable sources will do, since they may or may not take an interest in specific data.  I'm not saying that page views and followers do or do not contribute to notability, but the evidence can be considered on its merits. 

  Nor is there a requirement for the world at large to notice topics in prose.  An example is Barber Island.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

But you left out this part: "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." There is nothing there about gaining attention on social media, because social media coverage is not in agreement with neutrality - a content policy WP:NPOV. Also, Aniston's attention is not noteworthy enough to be covered by mainstream sources, as was stated above. And it appears that nobody is asserting what independent reliable sources will do - this is because Wikipedia and its editors do not engage in foretelling the future WP:CRYSTAL. We can only create articles that reliable sources cover - we do not decide, or even try to decide, what mainstream sources should cover - or we would also be in the POV business of righting great wrongs WP:GREATWRONGS. And the problem with page views, followers, and social media coverage is this is not independent journalistic coverage, upon which notability relies. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Multiple Penthouse covers plus the Pet of the Year (not just the month, that would be nothing special), top 5 in an independent pornstar ranking, unique feature as one of only two exclusive contract performers of Naughty America, a big company, in over 10 years. Contract performers are seen as the big queens in the porn industry who have reached it all. (At the same time they are rather rarely getting awards because of their advantage to only shoot e. g. 10-20 films a year and their comfort not to do extreme stuff like others). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with SamWinchester000's excellent explanation for keeping this article.Glenn Francis (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Penthouse covers,and Pet of the Year coverage by Penthouse do not qualify as independent coverage because these are Penthouse Magazine products. There would have to be independent coverage of these in reliable sources to indicate notability. Where are the independent sources stating she is in the top 5, and how much coverage is there? Please post them because I am not seeing this covered in the Wikipedia article. Where are the independent reliable sources that cover her, her contract, and the nature of that contract with Naughty America. (And what the heck is Naughty America?). Again, where are the sources that say "contract performers are seen as the big queens in the porn industry" and these have reached the top? Steve Quinn (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep as a WP:GNG pass. Subject has received significant coverage. SSTflyer 04:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Which sources demonstrate that the subject meets GNG? The fact that Ms Aniston appeared in a magazine is not sufficient; they coverage needs to be about her. I'm not seeing such sources in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep as per above keep votes. Sources here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell none of these qualify as significant coverage per GNG and BIO. For example, this is what she looks like with and without makeup[1] and the article and the focus is on what the make-up artist can do - it is trivial coverage. This one [2] shows the pictures she has posted on Instagram - trivial coverage. This one [3] is merely an announcement and has trivial coverage anyway. This one is gossip [4] for the fans. And this is passing mention [5]. This is gossip and trivial coverage for the fans [6]. That appears to be all of them. At least now we are having a discussion. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• This ought to be seen as an object lesson as to why posts of raw search results establish nothing. A substantial share of the purported coverage of the subject are nothing more than compilations of gossip column items, with some individual items featuring Jennifer Aniston and others mentioning Nicole Kidman or Nicole Ritchie. Filtering such spurious hits and the many duplicate posts leaves essentially trivial coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per meeting WP:BIO per genre coverage and awards. Brought back to AFD in a hope that past supporters will not return to support, and denigrating the expected genre coverage because it is not in "mainstream media" is weak. And while yes the previous topic consensus can change... not I think this time. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• It was brought back because of notability issues and to assume otherwise is rather silly, I would suggest you read WP:AGF as well as the !votes here before making such absurd comments. –Davey2010^Talk 23:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Besides the obvious aspersions just willy nilly cast here and there, it is remarkable bunch of assertions. How does this person meet WP:BIO? And linking genre coverage to GNG does not make sense, nor does linking awards to ANYBIO. By the way, the subject has not won any AVN or XBZ awards, she has only been nominated. The subject has so far failed to meet the criteria for ANYBIO, BIO, and GNG thereby not meeting the requirements for BLP. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You appear to disagree with guideline explaining that award "wins" are not an absolute mandate when it clarifies... "or has been nominated for one several times"... and my math tells me multiple genre nominations are several... thus WP:BIO is met and well-sourced. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I disagree with you. But, thanks for clearing that up. None of these awards have the backing of independent reliable sources that demonstrate these awards' significance. I appreciate you linking to the References section of this article - but, as far as I can tell, none of these demonstrate the significance of these awards in order to meet the criteria for ANYBIO. However, if you so desire, I would appreciate you providing feel free to provide links for the particular references that support your contention, if you so desire . Obviously corporation produced announcements are not independent sources; these contradict the core content policy WP:Neutrality, and WP:Verifiability, yet, even these only provide line-item passing mentions. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - NOTE: I've recently edited the article under consideration here. FWIW, the previous AfD about this subject, which is actually Nicole Aniston, was also unfortunately started as part of a pointy, mass-AfD crusade by an editor that left Wikipedia a while back when their favorite article was deleted.

One only needs to go to the Wiki-link for Naughty America to find out about that adult film production company. Also, the article here already has a double citation (one to AVN - one of the most notable trade magazines in the adult film industry - and one to the online magazine itself) to the claim that the subject here was ranked highly in an online magazine's list of "Top 25 Hottest Porn Stars", whatever that really ends up meaning. Guy1890 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Nothing short of keep, (yes not even "no consensus") would satisfy me here. In fact, if this closes as anythign other than a keep it would be indicative of an abandonment of wikipedia's mission statement which is to document notable henomenon about our world in an encyclopedic manner. How can someone that draws colossal celebrity-like followings on social media be viewed as anything but notable? If wikipedia has reached the stage where it no longer reflects the real world, it means there is something wrong with either (a) our editors, or (b) our notability guidelines. I really hope that we don't reach that point where we need to go beyond discussions on delete threads into a fundamental insight on the obstructiveness that has grown on sex-related (particularly porn-related) articles Pwolit iets (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)