Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Marie

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Another porn AfD which hinges on an award, but in this case I see good reasons in this AfD that the award is not independently notable. "person won an award that is notable no matter what" is not correct. Being Penthouse Pet is not enough in itself Drmies (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Marie

AfDs for this article:
    Phoenix Marie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:PORNBIO as here single award win ,the Juliland Award is is not well known or significant. In addition,her numerous nominations do not indicate notability.Nothing to suggest she passes WP:GNG. Finnegas (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep as passes GNG and PORNBIO, Each and every award is sourced, Plenty of news coverage too [1][2] [3]. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very brief mention of her name in The Daily Mail and The Huffington Post is not enough to pass
        WP:GNG.Finnegas (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Finnegas (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep She has been nominated for Female Performer of the Year by AVN and XBIZ. Female Performer of the Year is the most coveted and prestigious award in every porn industry awards ceremony. When debating the removal of nominations from PORNBIO, we didn't discuss how nominations in certain award categories can be evidence of notability, and we should have. Receiving a nomination for Female Performer of the Year by AVN or XBIZ is certainly evidence that a porn star is not only notable, but an A-lister in the adult industry. Keep, per WP:Ignore all rules; absolutely no doubt in my mind that this adult performer is notable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just realized that she passes criteria #3 in WP:PORNBIO which states "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." She has appeared in two music videos for notable songs and artists. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Making a brief appearance in these two music videos cant be described as featuring. Even if it did they failed to achieve much or in Coolio's case any chart success. Finnegas (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no WP article on Coolio's single "Take It to the Hub" yet, but there is a lot of media coverage of it. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. The Juliland award is given by a porn producer to its own products, and does no more to establish notability than my "World's Greatest Grandpa" Award (and its accompanying coffee mug). Minor roles/appearances in nn music video fail PORNBIO#3, especially when one video is just advertising for a porn site. Community discussion established an "overwhelming consensus" that porn industry award nominations are not significant evidence of notability; Rebecca1990 raised similar arguments in those discussions; they were rejected; and therefore such arguments should be given no weight here. No significant coverage satisfying the GNG, just pop culture namedrops and photo captions. And the porn "A-lister" argument is irrelevant. Aside from the complete lack of evidence support such a blanket claim of stature, it's not the award giver that determines the subject's significance. It's the Wikipedia notability standard, just like it is for webcomics, romance novels, self-published authors, Youtube "celebrities" and other groups where internally generated honorifics have been rejected as reasons for overriding the GNG. IAR is not a reasonable or legitimate basis for overriding basic BLP and RS standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep person won an award that is notable no matter what, also the person has been nominated more many other awards that shows notability. she was also Penthouse Pet of the Month that's notable as well the only way she wouldn't be considered notable is if she just did porn and got no awards and honors for it. Redsky89 (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is absurd to argue that all award winners are inherently notable. PORNBIO requires that the award be well known and significant which is a higher standard than notable. WP:PORNBIO excludes nominations from consideration in notability discussions. Being Penthouse Pet of the Month does not in any way make the model notable. Finnegas (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. Juliland is a porn producer, this performer works for Juliland, and their award is no more noteworthy than being the Employee of the Month at Wal-Mart, and no more a sign of notability than Burger King naming their "Satisfries" to be the "Year's Best New Snack" or whatever. A recent RFC produced an "overwhelming consensus" that porn industry nominations are not counted toward notability, and being a Penthouse Pet was similarly removed from PORNBIO years ago. This is just another porn BLP without any reliable sourcing, contrived entirely from PR material and the occasional pop culture namedrop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This porn star (and I do mean porn STAR; she has certainly earned that status) has 23 AVN, XBIZ, and FAME award nominations, half of which are not scene-related or ensemble categories. Do you honestly not realize how ridiculous it is to question the notability of a porn star with 11 performer nominations? Especially when two of those nominations are for Female Performer of the Year. And we never discussed the FPOTY awards and nominations in the PORNBIO discussion like you claimed above, so there is no consensus to reject them. I'm just bringing up the fact that at least one award nomination should be considered evidence of notability when it is the top prize in that entire industry. I do understand the deletion of porn articles that barely passed the previous PORNBIO guideline getting deleted now, but Phoenix Marie passed the previous PORNBIO guideline with flying colors. Another evidence of her notability: She has 48 titles so far for 2014 on IAFD. Do you know how many AVN FPOTY 2014 Bonnie Rotten has? 47. In case you're wondering, I did exclude compilations for both of them. And no, that is not the average number of titles a porn performer stars in every year (or 9 months, since were in September); 99% of performers currently working in the porn industry are actually struggling to get work. The NOTABLE ones, like Marie and Rotten, are the only ones getting booked for 45-50 shoots in 9 months. And isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to inform readers? Provide them with information they would otherwise seek for in unreliable sources, such as Wikiporno and Boobpedia? Wouldn't you agree that deleting an article that is read nearly 1000 times a day ([4])
      WP:NSONG and "Take It to the Hub" doesn't have an article on it yet, but it does pass GNG. Google it and you'll see how much coverage it has. Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Keep For the Reasons so well explained by Rebecca1990. Phoenix Marie is definitely "one of the biggest stars" and an "A-Lister" in the Industry. I especially agree with Rebecca1990's comment: "And isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to inform readers? Provide them with information they would otherwise seek for in unreliable sources, such as Wikiporno and Boobpedia?" Glenn Francis (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2014 (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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phoenix_Marie&oldid=1142242411"