Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Holiday

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Tiffany Holiday

Porn actress who does not appear to satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Speedily deleted seven times over the past few years, and it doesn't seem that notability has improved. A previous deletion review can be seen here. The article does not assert notability in my view, but the speedy tag was removed and given the history I think it's time for an AfD discussion. Accurizer (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt the earth. An attempts to recreate this article should have to pass a deletion review, this is getting ridiculous. It is bordering on disruptive. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion.--Crossmr (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. I definitely wouldn't do her. Oh, and WP:PORNBIO. Ya, that too. Ironho lds 03:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Fails WP:N amd WP:BIO. This in spite of such encyclopedic text as "She is known for a big natural breast." One breast? Is the other lesser in size or unnatural in its augmentation? Edison2 (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed, it does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Lady Galaxy 06:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Pass WP:PORNBIO, WP:N and WP:BIO - see talk page, over 100 scenes, 894,000 hit on Google [1], 36,200 on Google Images [2]. Very famous American porn star [3] [4]. --THFFF (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is that passing? Just because she has a bunch of Google hits? (Most of them are links to pages, sure, but packed with photos of her and infested with ads and God knows what else.) Where's all the sources? All you have on the page is a link to a site that's basically an adult version of IMDB... Lady Galaxy 18:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Many film she starred are AVN Award Nominees, I've add it to the article. Now you can't say she doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Please reconsider your vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.247.170 (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been nominated 4 times for the AVN Award. The criteria states "Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award" - what does "serious nominee" mean though? Lugnuts (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She hasn't been nominated 4 times for an AVN Award, just the films were. Epbr123 (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment In her business, that is the same thing, as such films are certainly not being nominated for their plot, dialog, or social commentary (chuckle). Don't get me wrong... I am still voting delete (below), but I am doing so because because this article needs significant improvement in WP:RS sourcing to convince me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real porn star Qwerty1234 (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I question what you're trying to say here. I know she's real, but where's her claim to fame? Most people (minus hoaxes) here nominated for deletion are real. They're living people, if that's what you're trying to say. They still get deleted... Lady Galaxy 18:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO. As for the claims above, notability is not inherited from the films she was in, especially based on cast listings. Also X number of films and Y number of ghits are not reliable criteria for notability, especially in porn. They are too easily inflated. This article is basically an IAFD entry. • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Gene93k. Tabercil (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She has over 800,000 hits on Google - most of the porn stars who have an article on Wikipedia have less than 800,000 hits. What about the Google Image test? She has over 36,000 images - most of the porn stars who have an article on Wikipedia have less than 36,000 hits on Google Image. Exemple: [5]. You can check it. Tabercil, you know porn, you should know she is notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by THFFF (talk • contribs) 08:15, August 24, 2008 (UTC)

G-hits is insufficient. If you look at WP:PORNBIO, you'll see right below it the Invalid criteria, which points out that Googlebombing can influence the result and the porn industry is known to use that. Tabercil (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100+ scenes. According to WP:PORNBIO most of the porn stars on Wikipedia should be deleted :( ... In fact I think that WP:PORNBIO should be deleted - Porn stars are people and they should be judged like any other person. --THFFF (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why other porn stars have not been GoogleBoombed and have less G-Hits. Like Bobbi Starr (Bobbi and Starr are very common names). —Preceding unsigned comment added by THFFF (talk • contribs) 12:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

249 result on Google Video [6] --THFFF (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The volume of Google hits means little. The quality of that coverage counts. Since you asked, Bobbi Star got recognition from a credible body of critics (CAVR). That's how she passes WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, fails WP:PORNBIO. Sorry, Tiffany. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- She did double anal - only few porn stars do it -> She pass WP:PORNBIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.202.123 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't SALT.... yet. Having only once source is part of this article's problem Perhaps if User:THFFF used some of those 800,000 Google hits to find additional sourcing for the article to prove Notability instead of just saying that they are there. Reviews? Awards? Special Commendations? Critical acclaim? Prove notability instead of just saying so and the article will probably never come back to AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, google hits mean nothing in this genre --T-rex 21:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable porn star. 100 films should be more than enough. --Paranoid7 (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:PORNBIO. Starring in 100-odd films doesn't make someone notable, unless "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre" translates as "is now wide enough for Sperm Whale penetration. Ironholds 22:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y'know, you shouldn't've said that cause now eventually someone will make that very argument. And I really don't want to be the one trying to evaluate that AfD. <G> Tabercil (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. You know nothing about porn. --NZQRC (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AVN Award Nominee films. 777 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The films themselves were nominatee's, not her. If a film wins an oscar for audio but not SFX, is the SFX guy still notable because "a film he worked on won an oscar"? Ironholds 22:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you'll read the article you'll see that 4 films were nominated for the sex acts. She had sex in all of those films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.30.150 (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That actor nom for AGP is false information. Tommy Gunn was nominated for his performance in that film, not Tiffany Holiday. The other noms are for production. AVN recognizes the filmmakers and credits the production companies. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - In these 4 films, the Awards is not about the production (camera, make-up, sound and etc) - they are all about the performers - In "Anal Retentive 6" she did anal, in "Girl Crazy 6" she did girls and etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.15.85 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It is "a given" that porn actors do anal or other girls or other guys or multiple partners. Those acts do not show notability. But since you say the awards are about the performers, and since there is one AVN nomination listed that specifically mentions a performer (Tommy Gunn), show me the ones that specifically mention Tiffany rather than a co-star. Or explore those 800,000 Google hits and show me any that say "Tiffany Holiday has won or been (herself) a serious nominee for a well-known award", rather the film title being itself nominated. You find them and the article will quite likely survive the AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And remember... being in nominated films is not the same as being nominated yourself, as notibility is not inherited. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not saying you should keep her because she did anal. In "Anal Retentive 6" she did anal - this movie was nominated as "Anal-Themed Series". So she had a part in each one of the 4 nominations. By the way she did some double anal scenes - only few porn star do it. Most important: she starred in over 100 films. Most of the porn stars here starred in less than 100 films.
        As stated before, 100 films is not "contributing significantly to the genre". Ironho lds 17:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable actress per WP:PORNBIO. Given that there is a Playboy model with the stage name of Tiffany Holiday (different person) who may be notable. I recommend against SALTing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Playboy model is Tiffany Holliday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.239.106 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Broccoli (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, but some time has passed now and I noticed a few anonymous IPs tossed their hats in the ring. I thought that anonymous IPs couldn't vote in AfDs? Lady Galaxy 23:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing AfD is not a vote. And the official policy is clear about IP contributions: "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." Tabercil (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? I'm pretty sure I followed a few AfDs which blew up furiously over a few anonymous people commenting... Lady Galaxy 18:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabercil is quoting the policy. Theory and practice are two very, very different things, especially on the internet. Ironho lds 19:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Independent Reliable Sources. Tosqueira (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IAFD, AFDM, IMDB... --THFFF (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]