Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 September 10

10 September 2013

Deauxma

Deauxma (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deauxma is a pornographic actress whose article was deleted four times between June 17, 2006 and May 11, 2007. The article was fully protected after the fourth deletion, which is understandable since it was recreated many times back when she did not meet the notability criteria on WP:PORNBIO. It has been over six years since then and I believe that Deauxma's article should be restored. Even though the article was deleted four times, there was only one deletion discussion for it here, which took place seven years ago. The other three deletions appear to be speedy deletions. Deauxma was not notable back then but she is now a popular performer in the adult film industry. WP:PORNBIO states "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times" and Deauxma meets that criteria because she was nominated for two AVN Awards for "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" in 2011 and 2013 and an XBIZ Award for "Best Actress - All-Girl Release" in 2013. Not only should this article be restored, but it should also be unlocked. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support restoration. I didn't see any of the previous versions of the article but the nominations easily satisfy point #1 of WP:PORNBIO. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 16:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Aside from the write ups for the awards, do we have any other sourcing about this person that would meet GNG/RS? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Not all AVN or XBIZ awards are considered significant awards. The guideline also states that nominations and awards in scene related and ensemble catagories are usually excluded. This XBIZ "award" cited actually appears to be a nomination from the link provided - 11 nominees in all and the nomination refers to a single film, Roadqueen 22. Is that a single scene? I'm sure that we are all aware that PORNBIO is more generous about notability then any of GNG, N or BLP and that given a choice between the two DRV tends to err towards the wider community expectation that all BLPs are properly sourced. Is this sourcing likely to be available for consideration at any point? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Acting performance awards are a "well-known and significant industry award" and are not considered scene related. WP:PORNBIO Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Has this been discussed and agreed somewhere? PORNBIO doesn't actually define this. Also, I'm interested in your thoughts on the liklihood of sourcing appearing? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't know, I haven't seen a discussion for the significance of a Best Actress award. But if you would like to start one you can begin a deletion discussion for Pamela Mann and Lauren Brice, two pornographic actresses with no other awards besides Best Actress and neither of them have been inducted into the AVN or XRCO Halls of Fame. And don't forget that Deauxma was also nominated for AVN MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year twice, which is enough to pass WP:PORNBIO, even without the Best Actress nomination from XBIZ. I am also working on Deauxma's article in my sandbox. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
          • I have been following this discussion and I think I'm going to go Endorse after reading all the arguments. Its debatable whether the subject meets pornbio and ordinarily I'd go with a relist to establish whether the awards were significant enough but it is also very clear that no-one has proper sourcing for this individual so even if we accepted that pornbio was met we still have a BLP without a single reliable source. As the overarching consensus is that this is required for all articles to be notable and DRV undoubtedly gives GNG and N more weight then pornbio I don't see that we can go any other way. As a general rule, an SNG is a rule of thumb and can be depreceated if a thorough search has failed to find a source. That appears to be the case here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - "This XBIZ 'award' cited actually appears to be a nomination from the link provided - 11 nominees in all and the nomination refers to a single film, Roadqueen 22. Is that a single scene?" A "Best Actress" award is pretty much the definition of "a well-known and significant industry award" as it relates to PORNBIO. The "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" awards are, IMHO, debatable as to whether or not they meet the PORNBIO standard. I would say that they probably meet the standard, but you'll get some pushback on that...likely from the usual "I don't like it" anti-porn editors on here. Guy1890 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose restoration. Despite the obsolete and invalid "PORNBIO", which in this matter lacks consensus (as shown in an extensive discussion last year), these kinds of industry awards do not convey notability. Keep deleted in the absence of truly independent, in-depth biographical coverage, as per WP:Notability (people), which is the only valid and applicable standard here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "...Obsolete and invalid 'PORNBIO'"? The last time I checked, WP:PORNBIO was still a guideline. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Last time it was extensively discussed, it clearly didn't have consensus, so it isn't one. No matter what tag is on the page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
      • "Last time it was extensively discussed, it clearly didn't have consensus, so it isn't one." Really? When was that decided? When there's no consensus for what to do with an already established guideline, the guideline is kept, not deleted. If you have evidence of the latter, please direct me to it. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 17:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Erpert is right, PORNBIO is still a guideline. All deletion discussions currently taking place for pornographic actor biography articles listed here are debates about whether the subjects pass PORNBIO or not. Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
        • It's tagged as a guideline but there is obviously some dispute about it. If the discussions are solely around PORNBIO for inclusion, then people are missing the point. Go to WP:PORNBIO, scroll to the top and read the whole thing. The primary criteria is defined as still being the GNG, the additional criteria which PORNBIO comes under the section intro states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". Like many secondary criteria it's giving a "rule of thumb" as to if such sources as the GNG require exists, it isn't a substitution for that criteria. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
          • What did you say? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 17:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
            • There you go I fixed it for you and posted comment in the order they were posted rather than you inserting a comment making it look like I was replying to your comment. No idea what you last comment is supposed to be in response to or what you're having difficulty comprehending --86.5.93.42 (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
              • I don't know what this was about, but you just confused everything (and I was responding to you). Please don't do that again. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
                • Look at the timestamps, I replied to the previous poster, you inserted your comment at the same indentation level as I had responded to, ahead of my reply making it look like I was replying to you rather than the original commenter. I sorted that out, and yes I will do it again if you decide to corrupt the flow of comments. I notice you've done that again, moving your comment ahead of the original commenter, making it look like you responded before them. I'm still none the wiser as to what your response to my comment then meant, it's pretty clear, passing PORNBIO isn't always required to have an article, and similarly passing it doesn't guarantee an article, that's exactly what the guideline page says. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
                  • Oh, no, you won't do it again (that generally refers to AfDs, but it's essentially the same effect), especially because you made it seem as though I was continually responding to myself; thus, you're corrupting the flow of comments. The timestamps aren't always relevant either depending on the issues being addressed, especially considering you're the only one who didn't seem to understand whom I was replying to. Also, "passing PORNBIO isn't always required to have an article...that's exactly what the guideline page says." I'm sorry; where does the guideline page say that? That goes for all the guidelines, not just PORNBIO. Interesting how you're only singling it out. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 15:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
                    • Let's set the scene out here. Person 1 posts something, person 2 (me) responds to that, person 3 (that's you) posts something else, changing the order so person 2's reply appears to be responsive to them, then person 3 posts a none response to person 2. It's not difficult to think that person 3 has made a mistake and is now wondering why person 2's response isn't necessarily responsive to them. So person 2, tries to make the best of it by putting the comments back in to order, then posting a comment saying what they've done including the comment "No idea what you last comment is supposed to be in response to", yes I'll feel free to fix your breaking of the comment ordering, if you want to take this somewhere like AN/I since I'm so obviously being evil ordering comments in the way that everyone else does please feel free. Now on to your "Interesting how you're only singling it out. " - how stupid of me for responding in relation to the guideline being discussed by a previous commenter, in the context which is readily apparent if someone doesn't mess around with the comment ordering, how stupid of me I should have gone off at a wild tangent and discussed all the other possible criteria which weren't being discussed. How interesting that (again) you'd rather go by insinuation of some ulterior motive than have a reasoned debate. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
                      • Returning to the discussion... Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
                        • Without actually returning to the discussion, no surprise again you ignore the actual point about PORNBIO (and FWIW it's worth, just to keep you happy, the other alternate criteria too), you fail to respond to how pathetic your weak insinuations of ulterior motives. I was leaning towards letting Rebecca's work on getting a draft together to have it's day, not quite there, but leaning that way, you however have persuaded me that having a reasonable debate on the matter is not possible, so I'll bow out now. Perhaps it's time for you drop the stick yourself on that huge chip you seem to have on your shoulder. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Does not satisfy #2 and #3 from WP:PORNBIO. Weak support for criteria #1 does not in my opinion be sufficient for notability. We don't even know her real name. No procedural error in deletion per se, although deletion discussion was very short and long time ago. But no new significant information has surfaced to counter the original decision. jni (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In a situation like this, simply saying "endorse" makes it difficult to tell which side you're on. Anyway, it doesn't matter if we don't know her real name because per WP:BLP, we can't include it if it hasn't been published in reliable sources. On a side note, it always boggles my mind when admins misinterpret guidelines by making comments like that. Should y'all be clarifying these kinds of things for us? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 17:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "We don't even know her real name." Many of the articles in the Pornography Project don't have actors'/actress' real names, since many of them use stage names instead. Guy1890 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (edited my vote for clarity). Erpert, admins certainly don't have 100% understanding of guidelines - reasonable people have different opinions about them quite often. Of course I'm not putting great weight on not knowing her real name or any other single datum, but my point is the less we know WP:BLP-verifiable material about her, less notable she is. I'm endorsing deletion because cannot see improvement in notability since the last AfD. I'm not opposing relisting to AfD, that might be a good idea even. jni (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Understood. But I personally think opening up an AfD wouldn't make sense if this discussion is already going. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• I always dread participating in porn-related discussions because of all the badgering, but with a certain amount of trepidation, here we go: I'm pretty far from being a fan of PORNBIO, but DRV wouldn't normally enforce a six-year-old page protection when a good faith editor wants to write content. Procedurally speaking we probably ought to send it to AfD.—S Marshall T/C 17:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Relist and "unsalt" Deauxma so that a new discussion on the inclusion of an article about her can be had, since the last discussion at AfD apparently took place so long ago when the PORNBIO standard (which is obviously still a valid, but not the only, standard) was likely very different. Guy1890 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There are many users participating in this discussion who are very misinformed about WP:PORNBIO. I've already addressed the issues with Spartaz's and Fut.Perf.'s comments, now jni, in order to pass PORNBIO, you only need to meet one of the criteria, not all three, because if that were the case the only porn stars with articles on WP would be Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy. Now a lot of you keep asking for sources on Deauxma, so I created her article in my sandbox and I'm still working on it. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, oppose unsalting, oppose recreation. There certainly is a lot of misinformation here, mostly from those who want an article recreated. It is simply not true that it has been more than seven years since the most recent discussion; after the main target was salted, the article was recreated as "Deauxmae" and unanimously deleted less than two years ago, when PORNBIO standards were laxer than they are today. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deauxmae. All but one of the award nominations received by the article subject (in particular, the "MILF" noms) have been found in the past to fail the "well-known/significant" test in PORNBIO (see, for example, the Elexis Monroe DRV just last month and the underlying AFD). The article subject does not have a general "Best Actress" nomination; instead she received a nomination in a downlevel niche category that has never, co far as I can tell been found to meet the current PORNBIO standard for significance. The subject fails the GNG by a wide margin; even Rebecca1990's current sandbox draft does not include a single reliable source for actual biographical information, instead citing a narrow range of press releases, presskit pieces, and such non-RS's as "Orgasm News" and "Barelist" (not to mention "Southern Charms," which actually produces and sells the subject's videos). For more than seven years the performer's fans and publicists have been trying to foist an article on us with nary a shred of reliably sourced biographical content, and that stands as a compelling demonstration of the subject's failure to satisfy our notability requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • With Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's new information, I agree that Elexis Monroe is comparable. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, that isn't comparable, because that discussion was closed early only because the closing admin thought the discussion was getting too heated (I didn't think so, but...). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
      • My opinion is that the most likely outcome of a full-length discussion would have been endorse, as well. If you wish to argue WP:Other stuff exists, there are other material differences, such as a lack of poorly-sourced, negative information. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "The article subject does not have a general 'Best Actress' nomination"...she has a Best Actress nomination in a girl-on-girl-only film from Girlfriends Films. Either Best Actress nominations mean something (and they certainly do) or they don't. BTW, I am neither a "fan" of this actress nor am I an adult industry "publicist". It's becoming unfortunately very clear to me over time that coming to DRV on Pornography Project-related items is a giant waste of time. Guy1890 (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem is, the rationales from users that !vote "delete" in pornography-related articles usually seem to be less about the article's subject and more about the validity of WP:PORNBIO. This is the wrong venue to be discussing that on; that's what Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) is for. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 15:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Personalisation again. You are once again advocating the creation of an inadequately sourced BLP by reference to a SNG, so its hardly surprising that participants here are addressing the disconnect between PORNBIO and BLP/GNG/N/V and making choices between the two. Go find two decent sources and you get this article back instantly, but its much easier to slag off editors who disagree with you because you know you can't provide the sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Listen Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, 1. Both the seven year old AfD and the one from two years ago are outdated. 2. Most WP users who are active in WikiProject Pornography agree that MILF performer awards and/or nominations from AVN, XBIZ, and XRCO are indeed enough to pass WP:PORNBIO. You seem to be the only one who's going around WP, attempting to degrade the significance of MILF awards in AfD's and DRV's, including Elexis Monroe's DRV. 3. Just because the XBIZ Award nomination for "Best Actress - All-Girl Release" isn't a generic Best Actress award doesn't mean it fails WP:PORNBIO. There was a time when the AVN Awards were divided into separate categories for film and video, "Best Actress - Film" and "Best Actress - Video" for example, and that didn't lower the importance of those awards. And 4. You said that my sandbox draft of Deauxma's article "does not include a single reliable source", even though AVN and XBIZ are among the sources I used, which are considered reliable sources on WP. Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Please do not personalize the discussion; that is inappropriate. As for what "most WP users who are active in WikiProject Pornography agree". that's irrelevant when it conflicts with a broader community consensus -- and, despite your assertion, there's no such discussion on the project page or talk page. Such claims should not be made unless you can identify a relevant supporting discussion. As for you purported citations of reliable sources, those AVN and XBIZ are all postings of company promotional material. The promo pieces are easy to find:

AVN source 1 [1] is a barely-touched-up press release; the original can be seen here [2].

AVN source 2 [3] is nothing more than a shortened version of the Girlfriends Films press release found here[4]; even the titles are identical.

AVN source 3 [5] is also based on a press release; a different edit of the same press release can be seen here [6].

XBIZ source 1 [7] is a barely shortened copy of the Girlfriends Films press release found here [8].

• • AVN Online posts promo material provided by the magazine's advertisers. XBIZ posts PR material on behalf of its clients. That material fails RS and BLP requirements and can't be used in articles or to establish notability, no matter what may have been posted in a Wikiproject discussion that's older than the deletion discussions you reject as outdated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I already explained that those are reliable sources and I provided the link to prove it. You may interpret those sources however you want, but Deauxma still passes WP:PORNBIO with her award nominations alone. And if you're still skeptical about the significance of the AVN MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year Award, it is considered a "prestigious award" within the adult industry as you can see here. Coincidentally, Julia Ann (this years winner) stated in that article that among her toughest competition this year was Deauxma, now that says a lot about her notability, which is what we are discussing here. And also, I'm not done working on Deauxma's article in my sandbox yet. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
      • The extent to which a source is reliable is a judgment call to be made by individual editors on a case-by-case basis and WikiProject Pornography certainly doesn't get to set the rules to suit its own preferred inclusion criteria. It is a reasonable, normal position to say that there's nothing reliable about AVN or XBIZ. DRV has a history of supporting that position because PORNBIO is so far away from community-normal standards for a biography of a living person.

        However, personally I'm coming round to the view that BLP standards shouldn't apply to pornstar articles. Deuxma isn't a person, she's a fictional character portrayed by a porn performer. She doesn't have a date of birth for the same reason that Gandalf the Wizard doesn't have a date of birth: the character is pure fantasy. Any "biography" you can find is simply kayfabe.

        In my view the badgering that always goes on in porn-related DRVs as members of WikiProject Pornography try to impose their own standards on the wider community is verging on an actionable conduct issue.—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

        • That has to be the strangest point of view I have ever come across. Pornographic actors aren't fictional characters; they're real people working under stage names (are Lady Gaga and Whoopi Goldberg fictional characters?). And "any biography [we] can find is simply [false]"? Got a way of proving that? I doubt it. Also, as I stated above, we're not here to discuss PORNBIO itself, we're here to discuss if an actress passes PORNBIO. Why are those two things so hard to separate? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
          • "It is a reasonable, normal position to say that there's nothing reliable about AVN or XBIZ." No, it really isn't, since those sources are just trade magazines for the adult industry. Certainly, there are plenty of instances when certain types of potentially "controversial" information should be cited on Wikipedia using the very best of sources. That's where an editor's judgement comes into play, and Wikipedia is, of course, a collective endeavour in that respect. Once again, many, many adult film performers, directors, etc. use stage names, and so do many mainstream actors. That's nothing new or even controversial really. Guy1890 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Trade Magazines usually take a more critical approach to fact checking and the material published in them can be relied upon. In this case, both publications also routinely republish as fact error ridden press releases that misrepresent simple basic facts about the people they are promoting. Consequently its ridiculous to argue that we should uncritically accept them as reliable sources when they have been shown time after time after time to fundamentally fail the fundamental requirements for the sources that we are expected to use. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
              • "In this case, both publications also routinely republish as fact error ridden press releases that misrepresent simple basic facts about the people they are promoting." I've yet to see any evidence presented anywhere that this is true. That position is certainly an opinion held by some...usually by those that hold the adult film business in a general low regard. Trade publications and many other media outlets routinely publish information from press releases. That's nothing new or even controversial. "Rebecca1990" can defend her own version of this article (which I or someone else might write differently) herself, but the above identified sources are really just currently being used to cite very non-controversial facts about the subject here...that she has a website, that she plays a particular character in a long-running adult film series, and that she herself doesn't plan on retiring anytime soon, which really only she would know for sure. Some of this info could also be cross-referenced with other well-accepted filmography lists. Are there potentially better sources for this kind of information out there as well? Sure, but again...Wikipedia is a collective endeavour where more than one person can contribute to any given article. Guy1890 (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I really don't understand why anyone would have a problem with restoring and unsalting Deauxma's article. All this bickering is over a seven year-old AfD which included immature remarks such as "there should be a law about working in pornography after 40". The concerns at the two year-old AfD were that 1. "Deauxmae" was an intentional misspelling, made to avoid the creation protection on Deauxma. And 2. Deauxma still failed WP:PORNBIO because she only had one award nomination at the time. Both of those AfD's are outdated now that Deauxma received two additional award nominations this year. A lot of you keep getting sidetracked from this discussion, which is about Deauxma, a pornographic actress, and whether she passes PORNBIO or not. PORNBIO is used to determine if a porn actor should have an article on WP, not GNG, N, BLP or anything else mentioned above. I noticed that some of you really dislike PORNBIO, but it doesn't matter whether you like it or not, because that is not a valid argument on WP. Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As above PORNBIO isn't the golden criteria, you need to read the whole page PORNBIO features in, the standard still is GNG, PORNBIO is a "rule of thumb" as to if suitable source are likely to exist. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse, no meaningful increase in notability since the most recent afd. PORNBIO echochamber doesn't override WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:GNG, and WP:BIO, all of which actually do enjoy wide consensus. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I sound like a broken record here, but, a pornographic actor is not required to satisfy any other guidelines besides WP:PORNBIO in order to have a WP article, I thought I made that clear. For example, here are recent AfD's for Mike Adriano and Celeste Star, two porn actors who pass WP:PORNBIO but fail WP:GNG. The result of those AfD's was to keep the articles. Rebecca1990 (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • In addition, IP, WP:PORNBIO is part of WP:BIO. If it didn't have consensus, it wouldn't be a guideline. And what is your definition of "meaningful" increase of notability? Rebecca's evidence is pretty clear. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 13:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
      • "here are recent AfD's for Mike Adriano and Celeste Star, two porn actors who pass WP:PORNBIO but fail WP:GNG." Let's not go overboard here. A well-written Wikipedia article about a subject in the adult film industry will pass both PORNBIO and GNG inclusively, since those articles will show that a subject has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which means "that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. 'Reliable' means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability. 'Sources', for notability purposes, should be secondary sources. 'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." There are some limited exceptions for when non-secondary or tertiary sources can be used on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I just found out something. Deauxma is the star of a long-running porn series called Road Queen, and the series has made it to the Top 10 Chart on HotMovies on at least two separate occasions in 2007 and 2010, meaning she could probably satisfy point #2 of WP:PORNBIO, which is "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature". That is debatable, but regardless, she still passes PORNBIO based on her nominations alone. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Being on a single VOD service's "top 10" chart for an unspecified time period by no means establishes that it is "iconic", "groundreaking," or a "blockbuster". Rizzoli and Isles was actually number 1 on the New York Times list of most-watched cable broadcasts a week or three ago, but nobody uses such honorifics to describe it (except maybe its publicists). This wouldn't just lower the bar for notability, it would bury it six feet under. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "meaning she could probably satisfy point #2 of WP:PORNBIO" I'm sorry, but that's highly debatable IMHO. There's no reason to try and "stretch the envelope" that far. That's a bride too far for me. Guy1890 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse - WP:PORNBIO is shit, a relic of a brief period of time when sub-notability guides were thought (I was once mistaken in this belief as well) to act as some sort of override to Notability and the general notability guide. These starlets need to do something to establish that they are actually notable beyond being #49 in the "Best 50-Way Gangbang Award". Tarc (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. How many times do I have to say this. "I just don't like it" is not a valid argument on WP. Users with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from participating. And Tarc, you need to watch your language. It doesn't matter if Deauxma doesn't pass point's #2 or #3 of WP:PORNBIO, because she still passes point #1. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. The AVN Awards are the biggest awards ceremony in the adult industry and it has earned the moniker "Oscars of porn". Deauxma has been nominated twice by AVN for "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year". The XBIZ Awards are another big ceremony in the industry, and Deauxma received an XBIZ nomination for "Best Actress - All-Girl Release". Point #1 of WP:PORNBIO states "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Nominations and awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." AVN and XBIZ are "well-known and significant industry awards" and "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" and "Best Actress - All-Girl Release" are not "scene-related and ensemble categories" and are therefore, not excluded. I have yet to see an article being deleted because the participants in the AfD came to the consensus that "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" failed PORNBIO, in fact, there are plenty of articles on WP for porn actresses, such as Darryl Hanah, with nothing besides MILF award nominations. I can guarantee you 100% that if Deauxma's article hadn't been salted and I went ahead and created it, it would not get deleted. It wouldn't even be PROD'ed or AfD'ed. And also, you guys are very inconsiderate for making me work really hard on this for the past few days, just so you can give me nothing but negative feedback on it, even though the information I provided comes from reliable sources. Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse Once more I find myself agreeing with Tarc about what to do in a particular case, though not necessarily for the same reasons. . Although I do think there are valid special notability standards, it's not what written on a guideline page that makes consensus for how to apply a guideline, but what we do here. The current trend in this field is towards stricter standards than in past years, not looser, and I understand changes in PORNBIO as moving accordingly. In fields where so much is built on hype and promotion as is the case for some genres of entertainment, it is fully appropriate for us to be quite restrictive about the sources being used. This seems to be the case in a while range of cases. The practical application of GNG must be in accord with the nature of RW sourcing in the subject field--where formal sources are rare, as for some types of computer software, we are & should be liberal; where they are wildly overabundant, we are and should be restrictive. In fields where awards are rare and carefully metered out, we can and do accept those few awards which exist; in a field which gives hundreds of awards in every possible direction, we can and do accept only the highest level. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You're right about WP:PORNBIO getting increasingly stricter over the years, but we aren't here to debate weather or not Deauxma will pass a stricter version of PORNBIO in the future if the guideline were to be changed, we're here to discuss if she passes the current guideline now. It also sounds to me like you're insinuating that the existence of promotional material on a person automatically makes them non-notable. For example, let's look at Jenna Jameson, who is considered "The World's Most Famous Porn Star" and "The Queen of Porn". How do you think she managed to receive those titles? The answer is "promotion". She said so herself, it was her goal since the very beginning. Since entering the industry in the early 90's, she told everyone she met that her ultimate plan was to become the industry's biggest star. She was a contract performer for Vivid Entertainment and Wicked Pictures, two companies which promoted her and facilitated her mainstream stardom. She doesn't even seem to receive much approval from fans. Type "Jenna Jameson overrated" into Google and you'll see her fame come under scrutiny by people who believe she made very little to no effort in achieving her success. Despite all this, we wouldn't even consider deleting her article now would we? This also applies to celebrities. We wouldn't delete Kim Kardashian and Megan Fox's articles from WP because they have publicists? Publicity is irrelevant and not what we are supposed to be discussing. Let's not get sidetracked again. The main question here is Does Deauxma pass the current notability guideline on WP:PORNBIO? Why or why not? Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. When I started this DRV, I said that it was understandable how Deauxma was salted six years ago because of the multiple recreations back when she failed PORNBIO, but I just realized I was wrong, it's not understandable at all and there's something odd about this. How come porn stars Abbey Brooks (salted after 6 deletions) and Sara Jay (salted after 9 deletions) weren't salted so soon but Deauxma was salted after only 4 deletions? User:S Marshall stated above that "DRV wouldn't normally enforce a six-year-old page protection when a good faith editor wants to write content". I'm more interested in having this article unsalted so I can create a new one than restoring an old version probably containg useless information. Some users stated above that we should have this discussion in an AfD. I agree with either unsalting Deauxma or having the discussion in an AfD, because keeping it deleted and salted is very unreasonable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • And remember, people, when you simply !vote "endorse" in a situation like this, it's confusing (which way are you endorsing?); !voting "support restoration" or "oppose restoration" makes more sense. And now that I think about it, an AfD would be better after all because when a lot of people !vote "delete" there, it's more objective because most of those users either like the subject or are indifferent about it. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 16:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    • How many DRVs have you participated in? Do you ever bother reading the instructions on this page? Endorse is clearly endorsing the close = supporting the deleted state. Its perfectly evident to other participants. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
      • What is your problem? Now you've just resorted to throwing out insults (and don't even try to accuse me of personalizing things again). But back to this discussion...I've noticed that when people really ask the !delete voters to focus on the pornographic actor instead of WP:PORNBIO in general, it suddenly got quiet. I hope people are finally realizing that, as Rebecca states below, this DRV is intended to decide on whether Deauxma's article should be unsalted; nothing else. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
        • My problem is that you consistently behave as if you don't understand processes that you have participated in many times and waste my time and that of other editors as a result having to comment on stuff that you either actually know or should make the effort to educate yourself on before making your comment in the first place. Perhaps I'm wrong but I suspect you personally know full well but want to make some kind of stupid debating point to depreceate the opinions of those who don't agree with you. Either way, its wholly unprofessional and borderline disruptive. That's even before we start discussing your habit of personalising discussions and labeling people who you disagree with. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
          • The real problem here is that the vast majority of "Endorse" votes are invalid arguments based on faulty reasoning. There are many participants in this discussion so far who have either demonstrated a very obvious conflict of interest, mainly a dislike of PORNBIO, and/or that they are very misinformed about PORNBIO because they appear to be rarely or never active in WikiProject Pornography. I honestly don't think that Erpert is trying to depreciate the "Endorse" votes, he is just acknowledging all this and also the fact that many users have gotten sidetracked from this discussion, which is a debate about the creation protection currently in place for Deauxma and if she passes PORNBIO, not a debate about the PORNBIO guideline itself. Rebecca1990 (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Absolute and utter nonsense, and close to an attempt at deliberate disruption. No one on the opposite side of the debate from Rebecca1990 has shown any sort of conflict of interest. None whatever. Believing that a guideline is defective, or that it has lost consensus support and should be deprecated is not a conflict of interest. Rejecting a disputed interpretation of a guideline is not a conflict of interest. There was a very clear consensus in the last round of efforts to rewrite PORNBIO, a bit over a year ago, to reject the principle that all individual awards/nominations, regardless of category, are suitable for establishing notability. That principle grew out of AFDs where, as I recall, awards such as those for "unsung" performers, and for best fill-in-the-body-part were disregarded, and has later been extended to exclude categories like "Web Babe" and, yes, "Best MILF". The PORNBIO talk discussions didn't settle on a final wording, but the main alternative collectively received very broad support, and have many elements in common. Morbidthoughts' proposal -- key language "The significance of an award/nomination is based on the notability of the awarding organization such as AVN and the award category" -- enjoyed consensus in principle, but no agreement on a final text was reached due to disputes over whether to maintain the "multiple years" requirements for nominations and exactly how to measure "notability," which was meant to be a stronger standard than simply notable-enough-for-a-Wikipedia-article. It's reprehensible for you and a small number of other users to continuously cast aspersions on users who try to apply the principles hammered out in those lengthy discussions, and to make veiled (and increasingly not-so-veiled) accusations of bad faith against them -- or "us", if you prefer, since lately you've tossed such barbs in my direction. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. A lot of you already voted to either restore or keep deleted, but very few of you have given your opinion on whether to unsalt Deauxma or not. Like I said, I'm not too concerned with restoring an old, useless version of this article, I'm interested in getting it unsalted so I can create a new one. And also, I've been receiving some criticism against my sandbox draft of Deauxma's article, but no input from you guys. You're all welcome to work on my sandbox and help make any improvements or corrections you'd like to the article to make it suitable for inclusion on WP. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support restoration. Some people are bias against any porn on Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines to determine what Wikipedia should have on it. Your personal dislike of something, be it pornography or the guidelines for it, isn't relevant. This person clearly meets the guidelines for people in their industry. Dream Focus 19:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Whose personal dislike? Where? Just because Erpert and Rebecca have been repeatedly bleating that rather than producing independent reliable sources doesn't make it so. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a pretty major aspertion Dreamfocus, you need to either evidence that or remove it. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Note that Erpert has taken me to AN in response to my replying to a direct question. [9] Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)