Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:13, 6 January 2020

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Sexuality and gender. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Sexuality and gender|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Sexuality and gender. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender/archive

Purge page cache

watch

In addition to AfDs, this page also tracks Categories for discussion, Templates for deletion, Miscellany for deletion, and Deletion review, but these discussions are not automatically expanded here. You will have to follow the links from here to the discussion pages. Instructions for adding these discussions to this page are provided in the comments when you press "edit".

For important information about categorization:

Articles for deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The status of the nominator notwithstanding, the consensus of the discussion by other editors is that this person does not meet our notability requirements. RL0919 (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jada Stevens

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

Delete: Not a notable pornographic film performer.--NL19931993 (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bunch of directory listings and promotional PR sources does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since all we have and all we find are porn related media, awards and promotions. With nothing beyond that, our subject fails WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't find her own work also biography related to reliable source. subject fails WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 21:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete To me it’s a borderline situation; if she had just a few more reliable sources I would say keep. (Aside: It’s kinda confusing when the nominator also votes, kinda redundant). ⌚️ (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The opening nomination of an AfD is a delete vote, that also includes a mandatory rationale. It is a terse, but not unusual, way for some nominators to format their nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: being listed on CNBC's 2015 list of the most popular porn stars seems to satisfy WP:NACTOR #2, "has a large fan base". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source you cite indicates simply that our subject got a lot of "online votes" (without accounting for double voting) for "popular female porn stars," a process that the reporter gauged through looking at the "average of the stars’ Google Trends ranking." Not much there, wouldn't you agree? (And google searches & numbers are not supposed to be used to help identify a subject's notability.) -The Gnome (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, but there's a difference between using WP:GHITS to determine notability and using independent, published sources. The author and/or editors of the CNBC piece decided that online votes and Google Trends were worth reporting on. Whether that was a valid decision has nothing to do with our own notability guidelines. I agree there's not much there, which is why I said "weak keep". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep on using same rationale, 90% of biographical articles related to porn sector would be deleted. There was a reason why WP:PORNBIO was created in the first place. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia are made more strict, then it is to be expected that a number of articles will disappear, along with other changes possibly happening, such as use of references. This is exactly the case with the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO. It is no longer valid - so articles that have appeared on the basis of WP:PORNBIO are bound to be re-evaluated. And if this means deletion, then deletion it shall be, of one article or of one thousand articles. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Snowball, significant coverage and yes, Gemma Hickey does matter and is notable. Missvain (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Hickey

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

*Delete: I am trying to understand the rational for Hickey being notable. The first homosexuals to marry in NL do not have Wikipedia articles and they were also engaged in activism. Are we saying that Hickey is notable as a filmmaker?--NL19931993 (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Also Hickey was the head of a national organization but this does not automatically make someone notable. Also doing international travel to promote your organization does not automatically make you notable. Having a local non-profit in a small city, with no staff or major operations, also does not automatically make you notable.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC) banned sock[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also note https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/corner-brook-volunteers-add-female-content-to-wikipedia-1.5057040 I am not sure if Hickey was one of the articles but it may be relevant to this discussion.--NL19931993 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:BASIC based on sustained and thorough coverage: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] TJMSmith (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV as found by TJMSmith. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TJMSmith. Nomination seems to be based on WP:WHATABOUTX completely ignoring the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, also nom should like get woke that use of “homosexuals” is generally demeaning and inappropriate except in clinical usage. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. plethora of press.NotButtigieg (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes GNG, not even remotely borderline. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources added above by TJMSmith Dartslilly (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources added. Toughpigs (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cited sources from within the industry or making passing mentions do not convey notability. RL0919 (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tianna

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

There is a book but the link goes to an empty page. Plus only a single fact is sourced to.suggesting it lacks depth. What is left is poor gruel for a BLP and utterly fails GNG. Porn awards no.longer offer any notability so a clear fail as a blp Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not fit the inclusion criteria for performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - John Stagliano cites her role in pioneering gonzo pornography which passes criteria 3 of WP:ENTERTAINER or criteria 1 of WP:CREATIVE.[14] "[Tianna] looked right at me, actually looking at the camera, it was the first time that something like this had really happened in porn. That to me was a vehicle for being creative and doing weird stuff. It quickly became tremendously popular". Her hall of fame status is an acknowledgment of this role. She is referenced on 10 pages in this book[15]. Other sources limited by the google preview include [16][17] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In reference to the claim made above by Morbidthoughts about Stagliano, a porn producer praising a porn performer for her porn prowess does not confer notability in Wikipedia. The other sources cited are simple & routine name drops (here & here) in two books about pornography, which, no surprise, are bound to contain names of porn performers. Sources verifying her Wikinotability beyond porn are not there. Our subject blatantly fails WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the recently depreciated WP:PORNBIO Wm335td (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teagan Presley

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

Sources are rubbish. Porn Awards do not equal notability. There only decent source is about a stalker. That's not worth a biography. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the depreciated WP:PORNBIO guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the Seattle Times article[18], she has been covered in [19][20][21][22] She passes the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. We are offered once again in an AfD about a porn BLP claims about sources that turn out to be of little or of no value: All of them, including the impressive reference to The Economist, take us to articles about a case of banks abusing their power, in which our subject is mentioned as a victim of the abuse along with many others in her profession. (In short, banks decided for some reason that they did not want porn performers as their clients and tried to get rid of their busines; it kinda boomeranged.) In sum, there's no there there. -The Gnome (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a WP:NOTVALUABLE argument. Not only do those articles note her actual name. They also note her former profession and current job status along with information about what happened to her specifically rather some other victim in the same situation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed the subject has no "value", encyclopaedic or otherwise. So, invoking WP:NOTVALUABLE is without substance. But let's dig in some more: The subject under discussion may well be not just "of value" but quite notable too, though in the typical, "real-life" sense of the term. To be notable for Wikipedia, a subject has to meet certain criteria, among which, our dear, departed WP:PORNBIO no longer is, no matter how deeply its passing is mourned. Presley has to meet WP:NACTOR and the sources you present do not offer her a leg to stand on. That's all there is to it, really. -The Gnome (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources do not make the case for WP:ACTOR / WP:BIO. For example, the Seattle Times source is this: "Porn-star stalker: Pierce County man gets 4-month sentence". The actress' feud with Chase (her tweets / interview) is equally not helpful towards BIO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Haze

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

I cant see the wapo source as its behind a paywall but its a film review not an article about the subject. An interview and article that is half promo and half quoting an advice column do not pass gng. Porn awards no longer provide notability. Not good enough for a blp Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the depreciated WP:PORNBIO guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is only supported by PR sources, no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable actress.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Haze

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

Sources are not good enough to meet the gng and porn awards no longer provide notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the deprecated WP:PORNBIO guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Congratulations for nominating a GA-class article for deletion.[23] Is this a first? Haze passes WP:ENTERTAINER given that CNBC wrote that she was "arguably the most popular performer in the porn" in 2011[24] and was also rated as one of the 12 most popular porn actress in 2012[25]. She has the following coverage passing the GNG.[26][27][28][29][30][31] Her scenes have been the subject of academic criticism.[32][33][34] Oh, she has also won the usual multiple awards and hall of fame status that triggered the nomination, evidence toward WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you serious considering this article for deletion? The subject person's really relevant for the twentieth century culture.u v u l u m (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: She has had minor non-porn roles and her success in porn and notability is quite routine and unencyclopedic.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

User blocked for sockpuppetry. ミラ P 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, with almost all sources being porn mags. Inclusion in a list alongside many others and a single sentence does not qualify as a "significant cult following". The sources provided above are not reliable, with the exception of one, which is not enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. An editor claimed Haze is "really relevant for the twentieth century culture." Since this is indeed, if true, a most significant attribute, our fellow editor is invited to help the AfD process by providing sources supporting the veracity of their claim. For my part, I could not unearth anything in the Britannica, any Art in America back issues lying around, or the Philosophy Today archives. -The Gnome (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As none of those publications are known for any coverage of porn-related topics at even the broadest cultural level (e.g. more than acknowledging it exists), that's hardly relevant. This argument is like claiming a a basketball player is non-notable because no specialist soccer, hockey or American football publications have covered him in depth. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A claim was made, The Drover's Wife, that our subject is "really relevant for the twentieth century culture." To establish this, a Wikipedia editor's unsupported claim is, of course, not enough (not acceptable, actually). We need sources. There have been persons from all walks of life that have been assessed by Wikipedia-acceptable sources (not necessarily the ones I proffered, in way of example) as, indeedd, "culturally relevant," be they sculptors, painters, writers, actors, athletes, etc. Among porn performers, at least one porn film, the one starring Linda Lovelace (another often cited cultural icon), has been assessed as having wide cultural significance and we have major media sources as well as books and academic papers establishing this. If we cannot find many other persons or works related to the porn industry as having "cultural relevance" that is not some evidence of "anti-porn bias", but simply what sources contain.

In sum, we have no sources whatsoever supporting the claim made about the cultural significance of this AfD's subject. -The Gnome (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't have to be considered "really relevant to the twentieth century culture" to have a Wikipedia article. She has to pass WP:GNG. These attempts to set up bars that have no basis in any Wikipedia notability guideline or policy whatsoever for the sake of finding something you can declare she doesn't pass are unique, to say the last. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to comment in haste, The Drover's Wife. I'd suggest you slow down a bit and view things from a distance to gain some perspective. I did not claim that our subject person must be relevant to the culture of the 20th century or of any other century in order to have a Wikipedia article. What happened is that a claim was made by fellow editor Uvulum to that effect. (Uvulum wrote: "The subject person is really relevant for the twentieth century culture".) That has been the sole reasoning Uvulum gave for their Keep suggestion and I merely asked wherther we could have sources supporting that quite significant claim. Is it clear now?

This is a rather legthy AfD and people can be excused if they do not read through the whole thing. But they should do so if they intend to comment in it. Saves time. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made an absurd argument suggesting that the lack of mention in Encyclopedia Britannica, an art publication (!) or Philosophy Today had any bearing whatsoever on assessing her cultural significance. I pointed out the fallaciousness of that reasoning. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gave examples of publications (and there are myriads of them) that we can use to show a person has "cultural significance". Jenna Haze does not have any such significance whatsoever. Uvulum claimed she has, but the claim is without any substance. And what you're doing here now is totally wrong! Admit that you grossly misunderstood the situation, and let it go. It's truly high time. -The Gnome (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misunderstand anything: you, in your own words, right there, suggested that an absence of material in those sources was in any way relevant to a consideration of the cultural significance of the subject, knowing full well that neither of them deal with more than perhaps the broad existence of her line of work. People can always disagree about sourcing, but these ridiculous attempts to avoid having to have that discussion by trying to establish impossible bars or make up imaginary guidelines in the hope no one notices are going to get a predictably derisory response. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is listed as a good article. I believe the best procedure would be first discuss your good article condition and then a AfD. For respect to the process of defining good articles.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. An article appearing on Wikipedia has to verifiably meet certain criteria of notability. And after it appears, the article may rise to become a great one, as far as presentation, sourcing, photos, language, etc, are concerned. But when the criteria for inclusion change, then we do not assess inclusion by "how well the article is written" but by whether or not its subject meeets the new criteria. WP:PORNBIO is out, folks! Articles, from stubs to GAs, that only meet WP:PORNBIO (a dead & buried criterion) are to be defenestratated. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Morbidthoughts. Lots of references on this article. No, porn actors don't end up in Philosophy Today, but pornography is an interesting subject, and I think you should judge the notability on equivalent people. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography is no longer a subject assessed by the criteria you personally set with your comments, . A porn related subject may well be notable in daily/everyday life but Wikinotabiolity is something different. Does our subject meet WP:NACTOR? This is a question we would not, of course, ask in real lie, but we do ask it here. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't refer to WP:PORNBIO, which was the only thing that was abolished; he argued that it met normal notability criteria, as he's perfectly entitled to do (and which it does). She's not an actor, so WP:NACTOR doesn't provide us helpful guidance here; rather, like for millions of other articles with no subject-specific criteria, we assess notability through the sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have to show that our subject person meets the notability criteria of any other person. If to show that we only use porn-related sources, all wed be doing is establishing that the person exists and is related to porn; yet, there is no inherent notability in that! Invoking only or mainly porn-related sources, porn awards, multiple appearances on porn movies, and so on, in order to crash through WP:GNG is essentially proceeding as if WP:PORNBIO is still with us. And I'm saying, let it rest in peace. -The Gnome (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, if we only use porn-related sources for someone who is primarily notable for being involved in porn, we'd be doing what happens in every other area, specific criteria or not, and using the most obviously relevant sources for the subject. Any article on any subject that doesn't have a subject-specific guideline and has to be assessed via WP:GNG is probably going to heavily feature sources generally focused on that subject. Porn is not different because you'd like it to be. As Wikipedia:Notability says, "Subject-specific notability guidelines... may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas": if you deprecate the subject-specific information on how to make those decisions, it just means that one goes back to general guidelines. What you clearly want is a guideline that specifically excludes consideration of the factors that used to constitute WP:PORNBIO in making decisions about notability, but that's not in any sense what that RfC asked, was argued, or was closed as. If you want that, then I'm afraid you'd better get writing and get a new RfC underway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may carry on in your mistaken understandiing that porn-related persons possess inherent notability by being, for example, prominent porn actors. And that using porn-related sources is all it takes to keep them up. That is your prerogative. What you cannot do is make personal judgements about your fellow editors, as you have done throughout the discussion (e.g. "porn is not different because you'd like it to be"). You are kindly requested to adhere to WP:AGF. Mistakes are free and all-you-can-eat; boorishness is a no no. -The Gnome (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem to be confused about the difference between inherent notability and notability: she can't be inherently notable as there's now no subject-specific guideline, but her prominence certainly is a factor in considering general notability, as it is for anyone else. (The reason many of these AfDs are succeeding with minimal if any opposition is because WP:PORNBIO led to a ton of articles on people who just weren't prominent enough to pass WP:GNG.) But let's take a step back: please point me to the specific wording in an existent Wikipedia guideline that supports the interpretation that porn-related sources or claims to notability are irrelevant for consideration under the WP:GNG. You can't do that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Notability has already been established by the GA process. Morbidthoughts has proved that claims that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR are unfounded. Another vexatious AfD from the anti-porn brigade. --John B123 (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming ulterior motives behind the AfD process amounts to a serious violation of our obligation to assume good faith and a personal attack. Let's focus on the discussion and leave home the unnecessary roughness. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I have violated guidelines take to to the appropriate Administrators Noticeboard, if not don't throw mud to try and discredit opposition to the nomination. --John B123 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, John B123, I do think you are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines by throwing around accusations of conspiracy but I won't bother with ANI. If you think your behavior is good in this exchange, carry on. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me reveal this: When the criteria change things get changed! If tomorrow, for example, the consenus is that hockey players are not notable as such and they have to satisfy some other, general criteria, we would see a tsunami hiting the articles of hockey players. It's important to underatand this!

And that would happen NOT because some editors have an "anti-hockey" agenda or whatever, but because when the criteria change, Wikipedia changes! The deprecation of WP:PORNBIO denies porn related subjects the Wikinotability it previously afforded them. It is normal (nay, it is to be expected) that porn related articles will start getting deleted. So, please, let's all try to get along, without any aggravation. AfDs are enough work as it is. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting, but the simple fact is that the anti-porn brigade started to AfD these article before WP:PORNBIO was depreciated, and in fact the same editors were the front runners in PORNBIO being depreciated. --John B123 (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia notability policy re: subject-specific guidelines" The deprecation of WP:PORNBIO does not "[deny] porn-rleated subjects the Wikinotability it previously afforded them" in any sense whatsoever. It denies them the inherent notability it previously afforded them, which is a completely different thing. Since nobody arguing to keep the article is relying on the deprecated inherent notability arguments bu, we need sources;t rather going back to general notability guidelines, The Gnome's comment isn't relevant to this AfD at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually misunderstand precisely nothing, The Drover's Wife, since what you're saying is what I just said. The deprecation of WP:PORNBIO indeed dEnies porn-related persons the inherent notabilty it previously afforded them, as you put it - or the (inherent) Wikinotablity it previously afforded them. And, I extend the rationalization, therefore, we have to assess those persons' notability by other, specific criteria, i.e. WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, and do on. (What has changed via the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO abt sources & awards I explain further below, in response to another remark you made.) -The Gnome (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE aren't relevant to porn performers, so, as with many areas, we've got to rely on the WP:GNG. The deprecation of WP:PORNBIO said absolutely nothing about sources: any question of sources wasn't put in the RfC, wasn't discussed in any significance during the RfC, and there was no mention of it in the closer's remarks about the RfC. The attempt to stretch the very clear and unarguable outcome of that RfC to that desired outcome is trying to take two and two and argue that you've got twenty-seven. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you do not understand the consequences of having WP:PORNBIO deprecated and particulary the relevance of what it contained that has now been stricken off. Continue to believe that we can treat porn-related subjects as if WP:PORNBIO is still with us. There has never been an argument from my part as to WP:GNG, since this is the set of criteria to which the notability claim of porn related persons has gravitated. You may .continue to use porn-related sources, porn awards, and the like, to establish WP:GNG notability. Do so and see how far this gets you. -The Gnome (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clearer way to say this: deprecating a subject-specific guideline does not mean that anything that was previously referred to in that guideline is explicitly excluded from any consideration regarding notability. You need to actually amend the guidelines to say that, and that requires an RfC of itself. It doesn't happen because you wish really hard. You could actually propose this, or you could repeat the extent to which you've misunderstood how subject-specific guidelines work on failed AfD after failed AfD when notable people get nominated and your entire argument is based on imaginary guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about this alleged anti-porn conspiracy in Wikipedia (and, frankly, this sounds a bit ludicrous). What is certain is that even is such an "anti-porn" crusade was underway before the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO, each case would have been assessed, as I'm sure it was, through taking WP:PORNBIO into account. Now, not any more. Quite simple, really. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome: It is true that the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO means that some porn related articles will get deleted. However, that does not mean that every porn related article nominated for deletion will get deleted. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, in the last month there were about 30 articles about people involved in porn that were deleted, with 7 Keeps. There are currently 9 active deletion debates about people involved in porn, and this is the only one that's facing significant opposition, probably because of the Good Article status. I agree that getting along without aggravation is a worthwhile goal; the easiest way to achieve that might be to let this particular article stand, and be content with the 30-40 articles that are or will soon be deleted. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Toughpigs. The AfD process is not an invitation for trade. If one article must go, it must go. If one hundred articlesmust go, they must go. There is no room for error here, i.e. no room for "pet projects", "sentimental attachments", or simple personal preferences. If the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO means that one thousand articles must go, because they nolonger meet the current, post-deprecation criteria, then they must go. It's truly very simple, as simple as it can get. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome, whether one, a hundred or a thousand articles "must go" is not up to one person to decide; it's decided case by case in these discussions. I think your passion for a clean sweep in this subject area is weakening your case for this individual discussion. If it truly is "very simple", then why do you have to work this hard to accomplish your goal? -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about one person deciding the fate of articles? Who said anything about actually deleting hundreds of articles? Who said anything about "sweeps", clean or not so clean? Certainly not me. AfDs are decided by editors' consensus. The possibility of many ("hundreds") of articles getgting deleted arises every time such a drastic change in criteria happens, but possibility does not mean certainty. Each AfD should be examined on its own merits.

All I'm doing, Toughpigs, is elaborating on the new status of criteria for porn-related subjects (persons, in particular). The change itself is very simple. The resistance to the change is not, which is understandable since there has obviously been a lot of work in creating and maintaining many of the affected articles. At the end of the day, all that I'm "passionate" about is having the extant criteria applied. Which, again, is as simple as it gets. Mistaking this for some kind of "anti-porn" agenda is a serious error, though it is your privilege. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The fact that the article is GA is not material to notability. In any case, the article was promoted in 2008 when the standards were much more lax. For example, most citatitions are from promotional industry publications (WP:SPIP), non RS web sites, IMDB, and so on. Arguments such as WP:INTERESTING are not helpful in deletion discussions. The annual listicles from a CNBC journalist (?) do not provide significant coverage for the subject: [[35]]. I'm not seeing notability here under WP:BIO / WP:ENT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets GNG as demostrated above. This is getting ridiculous. I cannot believe this was even considered. It is impossible to fully tell the history of the porn in internet age without giving significant attention to Haze. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Coffeeandcrumbs. Could you please provide verifiable evidence that our subject is so important that she meets Wikipedia's notability criteria? As always, I'm willing to change my mind when the facts change!

-The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the best source I can find is a tabloid journalism piece explaining her association with Tiffany Trump, then that's just not good enough - WP:BLPSOURCES takes priority. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more than enough here to pass GNG. A couple of editors seem to be taking a position of "excluding sources discussing what she's notable for, she doesn't pass WP:GNG" which is not how that works. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, The Drover's Wife. Please note that sources demonstrating notability in the porn business no longer qualify as supportive of notability, not after WP:PORNBIO has been conclusively deprecated. This is why all the (numerous) sources showing that our subject is a well known member of the porn industry are excluded from the evidence; not for any other reason. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a mischaracterization. The only thing that deprecation of PORNBIO indicates is that the awards do not count for notability. If you want to deprecate the AVN as an unreliable source for porn subjects, that consensus needs to be established at WP:RSN. As of now AVN as a source counts toward GNG. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Coffeeandcrumbs says, that's completely untrue. Deprecating a subject-specific notability guideline means that there is no longer a pathway to automatic, inherent notability for articles within that subject and articles within it then are assessed according to WP:GNG; it does not mean that articles within that subject are assumed to be non-notable unless they also have notability in another subject. There is no basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline or even reasoned WP:IAR argument about that one, just a couple of people with very strong opinions getting overly hopeful. As I said originally, that's just not how this works. It's also a position that's going to harm your case sooner or later: I'm someone who thinks we had way too many articles on people in porn for many reasons and would have supported the deprecation of PORNBIO if I'd seen it, but if the same couple of people keep going after actually-notable people on this obviously-incorrect misconception of the deletion process it's likely going to inspire a move to replace it with something instead of just using GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll state again that a person in the porn industry needs to meet the criteria to which WP:PORNBIO redirects us - nothing more and nothing less. A person who has worked exclusively within the porn industry need not possess Wikinotability elsewhere to have an article about that subject merit an inclusion. That's as clear as it can get! We should be having very easy discussions about the porn-related subjects put through the AfD process but insread we get arguments about this or that porn award. Well, when a criterion is stricken off, The Drover's Wife, the text that we deprecate is significant in helping us understand what precisely has changhed. Here's the relevant text of WP:PORNBIO, as it once stood: [The subject must have:] won a well-known award such as an AVN Award; received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or been a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN, the XRCO or equivalent. All that is now gone. -The Gnome (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC that deprecated WP:PORNBIO said nothing about any claim that those it applied to would instead have to meet WP:NACTOR: the vast majority of people arguing for its deprecation didn't make that argument, accordingly, the closer said nothing whatsoever that would support that claim. The redirect was made as later as a WP:BOLD move by some random user after a brief discussion had resolved to do something else entirely with the redirect and has no basis in policy, guideline or even any past discussion whatsoever, so no, these articles do not need to meet the criteria to which WP:PORNBIO redirects.

Again, WP:PORNBIO deprecated the notion that the criteria you listed were grounds for inherent notability - that is, grounds for an automatic keep regardless of sourcing. It did not, in any sense, mean that they are irrelevant to notability - it just means that they need to be considered on the same basis as every other claim to notability that isn't specifically prescribed (either as inherently notable or as definitively not relevant to notability) under a subject-specific guideline (which includes a huge proportion of Wikipedia biographies). Again, on both counts this demonstrates some fundamental misunderstandings about how Wikipedia notability guidelines work: people might well disagree on sources, but your arguments here are based on a belief that is objectively wrong. In short, what you're advocating would require a completely different and likely much more contentious RfC to actually change guidelines to incorporate that belief; there's no basis whatsoever for it in current guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, porn-award-rendered notability has been defenestrated. With WP:PORNBIO in place, porn awards were assigning to a person notability; after its demise, they do not. As to the deprecation RfC saying nothing about persons now having to meet WP:NACTOR, etc, hitting the link to WP:PORNBIO now, see where it takes you.

But do carry on arguing that only the automatic keep of porn-related persons has ben lost and that AVN (for example) render notability. The whole thing is getting absurd. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to the specific wording in a Wikipedia guideline that supports the interpretation that porn-related sources or claims to notability are irrelevant for consideration under the WP:GNG. You can't, because it wasn't the subject of the RfC, few if any people argued it and the closer's comments didn't refer to it whatsoever. WP:PORNBIO now takes you to the page the discussion at the time actually agreed on, which was simply a page explaining that it had been deprecated and pointing people to the discussion. As for needing to meet WP:NACTOR: you cannot simply make up stuff because you think it's convenient when both the RfC discussion and the closer's remarks are clearly available to anyone wants to read them. Again, few people raised the issue, the unambiguous close notes accordingly provide absolutely no basis for that interpretation, and the only discussion that's ever been had about the shortcut did not support even the technical matter of redirecting it there let alone making any conclusions about requiring meeting WP:NACTOR. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

look at the project porn list of deletion discussions towards t he top of this discuss ion and look the discussions relati ng to the red links and you will cle arly see your argument has absolutely no.basis in what we actually do. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting or even who you're responding to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Changed my mind after seeing the evidence presented. Looks like I'll have another project! Great work. Missvain (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I couldn't find any really good, solid material about her that would make me convinced she's notable, outside of making a video for a rock band and staring in pornographic films" You are making a WP:VALINFO or WP:NOTVALUABLE argument. You and I may not think what the sources are covering is important,[36] but the point is they do. There are three academic journal articles that provide criticism of her scenes. They could have chosen any scene, but they chose hers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, cool! If that is significant coverage (I could not access the journals) then right on. Trust me, I'm the *last* person who wants to see women who should have Wikipedia articles deleted. I also edited my comment, I do not want to be ever belittle sex work, to reflect that she has been in many pornographic films, but perhaps many have not been significantly covered in reliable secondary sources. I'd be delighted to see the article kept, I just struggled to find anything I considered significant. Thanks for your contributions! Missvain (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor thing, but re: [37] - per WP:REDACT better the strike rather than replace if anyone has responded/time has gone by (keeping context for other people's comments). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~On the fence~~see below - It's a difficult one. I started with a typical search, then looked into the academic sources linked above. I can only access two of the three, but neither of them are significant coverage of Haze. They talk about particular films she's in and mention her only insofar as to refer to what her character does without saying anything of substance about Haze herself. That contributes to the notability of those films, but doesn't do much for Haze herself. The other part of the equation here is more interesting, and that's what to do with someone who has received a lot of coverage/recognition within an industry, but largely limited to that industry. We have mainstream sources making claims about her being particularly popular/successful, but they take the form of listicles and go into very little detail about why she's popular/successful beyond listing industry awards. We need significant coverage in reliable sources. That it's a GA doesn't matter. The GA review is 12 years old, when many of our policies and guidelines were interpreted differently, especially notability. It's not a free pass to further scrutiny. I'm probably coming down on weak delete, but will sit on the fence to see if anyone can dig up significant coverage from a reliable source (not an item in a listicle, not claims about numbers of videos/awards -- in depth coverage in a good source). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Updating per the sources Aircorn dug up. They're not all great, but there's enough across all these sources to meet GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note to closer. Notability is not a requirement of a Good Article. Have no opinion on the merits of keeping or delisting. AIRcorn (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree there, from Wikipedia:Featured article criteria: In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles .... Notability is one of the "policies regarding content". --John B123 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to do with Featured content so won't speak for them. I am however very involved in the GA process (that's how I saw this AFD) and we do not assess notability when reviewing. A non-notable subject is unlikely to meet the broad requirement, but it does happen. Being a good article does not prevent it from being merged, deleted, redirected or undergoing other major changes anymore than any other article here. AIRcorn (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did some more...ahem research... and there is enough references out there. [38][39][40][41][42][43][44] AIRcorn (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG based on sources found by others in this discussion. TJMSmith (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Aircorn: found sources, but they need to be analyzed to prevent this WP:GA from being deleted, so a second relist is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 18:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a few editors did some work here and discovered that the person has some notability. I initially rejected the article based on Pornbio. Wm335td (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumi Yasutomi

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

Non notable individual that fails WP:GNG she appears to have been a politician at some point but fails WP:NPOL her only claim to notability is the fact that she is transgender. Celestina007 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The jawiki article should be checked for sources to prove this subject is notable here. ミラ P 04:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively significant coverage: [45] [46] [47]. Whether she is notable primarily for being a rarity in Japanese education/politics is debatable, but I suppose this probably passes WP:GNG. Dekimasuよ! 05:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a notability question, then Keep as pass of WP:AUTHOR#3. The ja.wp article shows a long list of publications, and about 45 seconds of Googling in Japanese for sources before 2017 (so, prior to political activities) found several reviews of her books in national newspapers as well as related interviews (e.g. [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] etc.). I have no doubt that more targeted searching for specific titles would find more, given how easy those were to find. So, in my opinion, the subject is notable under WP:AUTHOR#3, particularly the bit about creating or co-creating significant work that is the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", and all of the other coverage is bonus material that will make expanding the article easier. As for "her only claim to notability is the fact that she is transgender", well, no, given that her work was getting reviewed in national newspapers before she went public with her gender identity. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that she got a notablity before social transitioning. --Sharouser (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the article itself needs to be expanded and needs someone to look over the Japanese sources, there seems to be decent English coverage ([53], [54]), a documentary has been made about her ([55]) and judging from the research listed on the university page ([56]) and teh list given above by User:Indignant Flamingo she also has a good shot at WP:NPROF, though again, would need a Japanese speaker to confirm this. Achaea (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is notable (as per comments above) - I've added more about their politics for the time being. (Lajmmoore (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, per GNG, as evidenced by the many sources documented. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blow Buddies

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

Article about a non-notable nightclub. Existing sources are poor quality, and coverage about the subject is routine and superficial. Fails WP:ORG. - Mr X 🖋 12:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 🖋 12:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are several reliable sources that cover the topic in depth, it may be a stub now but it is the largest gay sex club in San Francisco, a notable city for the LGBT+ community if not the most notable one, basically it's the biggest gay sex club in the gayest city in the world. That alone merits inclusion. Gothamist, Gay Star News, and the Bay Area Reporter are not minor mentions their articles give the matter significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and therefore anyone should see it should be kept, just because the sources are largely the LGBT+ press does not mean the sources are invalid. One would expect gay topics to be covered further in depth by the gay community itself anyways and their media matters too.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This and this appear to indicate it is of significant academic interest in relation to the AIDS epidemic. Some other Google Books hits like p. 118 of this book show notability in the SF gay scene. There are several localized news coverage[57][58][59] and even tourism books like this one. IMO, there is enough to meet WP:GNG. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 23:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC) banned sock[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Seems to meet WP:GNG as per Coffeeandcrumbs and Ndołkah. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coffeeandcrumbs and Cwmhiraeth - plenty of news coverage is available to help improve the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Coffeeandcrumbs and Ndolkah. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Toughpigs (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Roy Myers

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

He is director, producer, screenwriter in the porn industry, with porn-related awards and various porn ventures, such as the WoodRocket website. The article has no place in Wikipedia since its subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BASIC, which are the notability criteria since the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete getting covered by the PR producing porno advertising industry is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not just promotional PR. The long filmography list and awards won demonstrate notability. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure why WP:ENTERTAINER is being applied to him when he's a director and filmmaker. As such he satisfies criteria 3 of WP:FILMMAKER given the collective coverage of his movies in that Google News search results. Examples: [60][61][62][63][64]. Forbes describes him as the "de facto king of porn parodies" while Vice calls him a "celebrated porn parody director" which is evidence of criteria 1.[65][66] He and his company are also covered in these sources.[67][68][69] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the sources provided above are not indicative of meeting WP:CREATIVE / WP:BIO. For example, the Observer source has this to say: “We figured we had three choices for titles: ‘Game of Bones,’ ‘Game of Moans’ or ‘Game of Thongs,” said Lee Roy Myers, who in addition to being the least visionary porn director/writer working today, is also the purveyor of WoodRocket.com, the company making the web series. (note "least visionary in the descriptor"). Vox is also an interview. I'm not convinced about them calling the subject a "celebrated porn parody director"; I'm sure that there are plenty of outlets calling various nn directors by this moniker. The other sources are equally inconvincing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He clearly meets WP:FILMMAKER though, and the XBIZ Award is not a random no-name promotional award. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as demonstrated by Morbidthoughts, he meets WP:FILMMAKER criteria #3: The person has created ... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. Full Holes[70][71][72][73][74] and Fap to the Future,[75][76][77][78] are just two of the notable films made by this filmmaker. On his own, he has received at least one very significant coverage.[79] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate how exactly you assert that the films of our subject are notable per WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFOE. Were they widely distributed, have they received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, or were they of historical importance? We have not allowed (and rightly so) films to appear on Wikipedia that are far more known than our subject's output ever was. -The Gnome (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOE is not a restriction on WP:NFSOURCES or the GNG. Are you arguing the coverage of those movies in those links are inadequate in terms of the amount of coverage, independence, or reliability? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Morbidthoughts and Coffeeandcrumbs. He is regularly interviewed, even if representing his company, WoodRocket. He's also featured in The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies by Thomas Leitch. Missvain (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But interviews are considered to be a primary source and thus are not an indication of notability! See WP:PRIMARY: Examples of primary sources include...interviews; and WP:PSTS: Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. -The Gnome (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are people that feel differently per WP:INTERVIEW#Notability. When independent reliable sources decide to interview a subject for a feature, there may be a good reason why, tautological even when discussing the definition of notability. Sure, the transcript itself is primary and any contentious information from that should be considered suspect but that is an issue of verifiability, not notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG and is the winner of XBIZ Award, a notable merit-based award in the industry. The long list of blue links in the Filmography table clearly indicates that he is notable. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ambrosiawater: With the exception of the Seinfeld parody, all the bluelinks in the Filmography section are pointing to the original, notable works that he produced porn parodies of. Very few of his actual works are covered, I just wanted to check you're aware of this. ~ mazca ^talk 21:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 05:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexology topics

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

"Sexology topics" is not notable as a group or set as required by WP:LISTN, nor is it distinct from sexology. This article is redundant to the categories that cover this and related topics. It also claims to be an outline, but we already have Outline of human sexuality, to which this is redundant (but to be honest, I also see no purpose in that as distinct from categories as well). -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this is not distinct from the topic of sexology itself. Indeed, the "Scholars of Sexology" is blatantly copied from the original article. I don't see any distinction between this list and the article itself, which more or less discusses all the topics included in the name throughout. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing this article provides that is not (or shouldn't be soon) at Sexology. Reywas92^Talk 20:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know whether it should be deleted or not, as I'm not familiar with list criteria, but strictly speaking from the perspective of someone performing a Google search, I think this would be much more useful than sifting through 2 articles such as sexology or Outline of human sexuality for something that could be more readily found in such a list. Of course it can be improved on, but it might be handy for someone curious about sexology that just wants to peruse common topics. Anyway, my 2 cents. PK650 (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that list-based articles, as navigational aids mentioned above by PK650, are not considered redundant with categories per WP:CLN and in particular, WP:NOTDUP. There may be other reasons for deletion, but "redundancy with categories" cannot be one of them. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Berke

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

Doesn't appear to be notable at all. The only relevant Google result is this very article, suggesting a lack of reliable sources (or sources, period) about Berke other than the mere five already cited in the article. Also worth noting that not only is there a conflict of interest here, as the article was created by the late subject himself, but according to this comment he made, he apparently "want[ed] [his] story to mean something after [he was] gone" and "hope[d] [his] little notoriety as a transgendered person [would] help [him] to be heard on [his] way out from this world" - not a very good reason to create an article on yourself, wouldn't you agree? Vaporgaze (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vaporgaze (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This all is at best local human interest level coverage. Nothing here justifies having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole vote is basically a WP:PERX which fails WP:ATA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 22:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject was detailed in an Associated Press article, had two pieces of coverage that, while local, were still outside of subject's relevant geographic area of Colorado and Florida, and appeared on an MSNBC documentary. ミラ P 03:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete needs more widespread news coverage. Plus, every single one of us will be forgotten, sooner or later. Pancho507 (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low level human interest story. There have been many instances of changing gender and then reversing it, I'm sure this qualifies as anything out of the ordinary. With the article created by the subject and the comment left on the Jbhunley's talk page it sounds like he was desperate to be remembered, best to use other websites for that kind of thing. Mattg82 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AfD's like this are always tough as I understand the want to establish the legacy of those who have passed, but Wikipedia not a memorial and the coverage of Berke is not at the level necessary to establish GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Categories, Templates, Miscellany for deletion

Proposed deletions

Deletion review

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ==Articles for deletion==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jada Stevens}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemma Hickey}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tianna}}