Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobbi Bliss

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.

WP:GNG is clearly not met and there are thus concerns that other policies like BLP and V cannot be satisfied either. PORNBIO does not appear to be satisfied, too - the award in question does not appear to be important enough according to the discussion, and "unique contributions" were hardly discussed. A redirect to the award list (SSTflyer's suggestion) may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Bobbi Bliss

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. The niche award listed is not well-known and significant. Negligible biographical content mostly sourced to the subject's own website. This is a BLP that falls too far below GNG requirements, becoming a

WP:PROMO for the subject's website. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would you please stop lying? You suppose a niche, probably coming from your gut instinct (I hope this is a nice word in English as it is in German ;), and give no substantial prove. I can only count 8 individual categories from the only quality critic award show in the industry. There is absolutely no niche existing but some major parts of the porn industry represented in those categories. Oral and Anal sex are the most common things in porn industry. Either you just want to push your self-invented unconfirmed POV or you're discussing about a topic you have absolutely no clue from. I will agree that a category like BBW from
XBIZ Award is indeed a niche, but Oral sex? The standard ability of every porn actress in the world and start of every film? When performers are known and subsequently awarded for their oral abilities, they definitely won't serve any "niche" by that. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment How could Hillary Scott hold the one-time record to have won five individual, personal XRCO Awards in 2007 if they were all "niches"? The XRCO just has no niches (other than promotional AVN and XBIZ in the last years). The Superslut Award e. g. isn't nearly exotic, either, but rather fitting the general (too) rough tenor of the porn industry. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The award in question is "XRCO Award for Orgasmic Oralist". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as I stated above, Oral sex (as wall as other of the very few personal XRCO categories) is not even nearly a "niche" but a basic ability for every porn actress. So, from thousands of actresses there have been less than 20 considered the best "Oralists" ever. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if the award makes the subject notable, where is the independent 3rd party coverage that discusses the subject in depth, to be able to build a bio? Please see

inherited from it. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis; thisBLP has exactly zero independent reliable sources, and is mostly sourced from the subject's own promotional website. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite one editor's spirited defense of the importance of oral sex in pornography (which hardly seems necessary), every single article without exception must comply with our core content policies, and this one doesn't.
Verifiability tells us that we must "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There are no reliable, third-party sources in this article, and unless someone adds such sources promptly, this BLP must be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, as far as I know the request for comment on articles such as this has not been settled yet. As such this nomination seems premature. Either way, I did not see anything unencyclopedic so far, hence keep. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't judge on whether it's "encyclopedic", We judge on the notability which this clearly lacks of. –Davey2010^Talk 18:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The open RFC doesn't cast any doubt on PORNBIO: the existing version has consensus and is what is being applied in this discussion. Furthermore, if the RFC passes, it will only tighten PORNBIO, so anything that would be deleted under the current version would also be deleted under the new version. Rebb ing 19:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The
XRCO Award for "Orgasmic Oralist" is likely a minor award category in what is otherwise one of the most "well-known industry award" ceremonies. Also, it's kind of hard for a Wikipedia article to be "promotional for the subject's website", when the subject here apparently doesn't have a working website in the first place. A lot of things on Wikipedia, even links to well-known or not so well-known media websites in actual citations, could be considered "promotional". That's really a road to nowhere that's better left less-traveled. Guy1890 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, another non-notable porn performer. Fails GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 22:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
flyer 16:13, 23 September 2016 (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.