Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Stevens (2nd nomination)

Add links
From 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. The arguments on both sides seem to depend principally on whether the Adam Film World Big Boob Babe of the Year award is significant enough to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:PORNBIO. The consensus is that it is not (and that the subject of the article does not meet any other notability crtieria). Deor (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Stevens

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Whitney Stevens (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 PORNBIO. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe it fails PORNBIO because even though Adam Film World was a notable publication, its awards are not as well known as say AVN but also that the specific category Big Boob Babe of the Year is not significant, given only in 2008. Not in 2007, 2006, 2003. As such it is a token award falling under standard set out by the discussions formulating PORNBIO.[1][2]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an Adam Film Word award is as "well known" as an AVN award is both unproven and absolutely irrelevant. We've already established that AFW is/was among the adult industry's leading publications; that much is reliably sourced and thus provable. I assume you have reliable sources to back your assertions that this particular award is "not significant"? If the same logic were applied to a Grammy Award that was only handed out for a brief period, would we say that the artist was not notable despite winning a Grammy Award? Of course not. The Grammys, btw, recently eliminated 30 categories; would you argue that any of those now-defunct categories are now "not significant" or that any of those winners were less notable? It's a shame this must be said yet again, but if the accolade is bestowed by an industry leader it simply cannot be regarded as "not significant" without something other than an opinion to back that up. Caper454 (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh its relative notability is relevant when it's in the PORNBIO criteria. Do the comparison:
Look at the news, books, and scholar hits... Yeah. Your analogy comparing AFW to the Grammy's is laughable. Talk about making mountains out of ant hills. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Uncelebrated, she fails WP:PORNSTAR. "Big-Boob Babe of the Year" for the short-lived and now-defunct "Adam Film World Guide" is not credible, well-known, and meaningful. As for sources, I only see Bangbros promotional profile, her personal twitter, and the usual AVN press-releases + IAFD.com. Fails WP:GNG Redban (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - win, so meets the requirements. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     21:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability is sufficiently established and the subject clearly passes PORNBIO: she has won a well-known and significant [award] and this is quite clearly cited in the article. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the AFWG awards are the most significant in the industry. There should be no question here that deletion of this article would be inappropriate. Caper454 (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AVN is, I believe, the most significant in this industry. The Adam-Film-World Awards has been gone since 2008; they lasted just 6 years. Do you really want to vote "Keep" on the basis of her being "Big-Boob Babe of the Year," an auxiliary, perhaps joke-able, category, for a short-lived magazine award? Redban (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@redban: Your own personal opinion is absolutely irrelevant. If you're so adamant that this award is neither well-known nor significant, the burden shall be on you to prove that. That will be an entirely different discussion. Until you are able to do that, this subject passes the notability guidelines. Caper454 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious how an award from Adam Film World, a publication which has existed since the 1960s and has been described by the Associated Press as "one of the (adult) industry's leading trade publications" [3] can be dismissed as a "minor award". Any rational person would have to view an award from an industry leader as a rather meaningful accolade, thus quite sufficiently satisfying the guidelines' requirement that it be bestowed by a "well-known" and "significant" source. Caper454 (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because notability is not inherited. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And because you're misstating the PORNBIO criterion, which requires that the award itself be well-known and significant. In the past British crown honors, White House recognition, Rhodes scholarships, university awards, and military honors frommany nations have been found not to establish notability even though the awards came from undeniably well-known and significant award-givers. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO; I agree with Caper454, Adam Film World is a well known & significant award and Stevens is a recipient of one which isn't a scene related/ensemble category. Redban's argument is flawed. First of all, don't try to belittle the award category because of it's name. Do you have any clue how many women with big breasts work in the porn industry in any given year? Being the one out of hundreds or thousands to win the award is an accomplishment. Secondly, the award was not "short-lived", it began in 1981. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above - Passes PORNBIO & GNG (Just a small note - Incase anyone looks at the history - I did accidentally close this as Speedy Keep as was closing some unrelated AFDs and accidentally went a bit far - Just thought I'd say before someone kicks up a fuss & drags me to one dramah board or another!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Curious - why do you say she passes WP:GNG? The others are arguing keep on the basis of "Big-Boob of the Year," not General Notability. The first reference in Whitney's article is actually a link to her Bangbros biography. Redban (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because I found these[4][5] - Not perfect but better than nothing I guess, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note: I have, as of yet, done exactly zero research on this particular adult film performer here. However, Adam Film World has had a number of award ceremonies over the years (including the X-Caliber Awards & the Adam Film World Guide Awards), and they are/were all "well-known" awards within the adult film community. Is the specific category under question here ("Big-Boob Babe Of The Year") a "significant industry award"? Almost certainly not. Many award ceremonies give out awards in minor categories, and this specific category (currently under discussion here) is likely one of them. Guy1890 (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly not? Prove it then. Opinions don't carry much weight in these discussions. I don't see how it's going to be possible to sufficiently classify the award in question as less significant than other awards handed out by the same source. Nothing in the guidelines will support this; it has already been sufficiently established that the source of the award is undeniably both "well-known" and "significant". Since the award is also neither scene-related nor from an ensemble category, it very clearly meets the criteria specified in the guidelines. Saying that this particular award is not significant will require proof, so go ahead and find it. Caper454 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to demandanyone has to prove anything to you. The closing admin will decide what votes carry most weight. Spartaz Humbug! 19:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete BLPs require decent sources and this ain't that. Token awards for having big breasts carry no weight - especially if only "awarded" for one year. Spartaz Humbug! 19:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. The Adam Film World Guide Awards fall so far below fall so far below the well-known/significant standard that they weren't even mentioned in a list of awards/nominations compiled for the porn wikiproject to be used in assessing potential notability (User:Epbr123/Adult award winners and nominees); nor was there any meaningful support for treating them as well-known/significant in the extensive PORNBIO RFCs and related discussions. Virtually all of the references to the award that I've checked were added by an SPA, violating an unblock commitment and an ANI consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:52, 21 December 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, Sam Walton (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with the view expressed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above. Finnegas (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails on all three criteria of PORNBIO. No notable awards or any other notable presence. -- fdewaele, 28 December 2014, 23:44 CET.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you all know that Раціональне анархіст is possibly a sockpuppet and currently being investigated. Both Cavarrone and me ([6], [7], [8]) believe that he and Redban (who already voted delete above) are the same user. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you all know that Rebecca1990 is once again making things up here. According to the link she cites, Cavarrone suggested that BBnumber1 was a Redban sock, not this editor. None of her own claims are supported by evidence, making this another one of her groundless personal attacks flung about indiscriminately to promote her position in deletion discussions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Cavarrone said that BBnumber1 appears to be a Redban sockpuppet, and BBnumber1 is being investigated for sockpuppetry in connection with Раціональне анархіст. Redban already voted delete above and he can't just vote delete again under a different username in the same AfD. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous, and likely bad faith. Aside from the point that the SPI was closed without action for lack of evidence before you posted, the fact that Cavarrone believed (correctly) that one editor was a Redban sock in no way shows that he believed a different user was a Redban sock. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...CheckUser declined to run any checks related to Раціональне анархіст in the absence of actual evidence...."' <much laughter> --Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that the SPI had been closed until after I commented. I also wasn't the one who began the SPI or even suggested it. I do believe that the SPI was closed too soon and that evidence proving that Раціональне анархіст and Redban are the same person is piling up. Aside from the four similarities between the two that I listed at the SPI, both usernames have made similar comments regarding foreign language sources ([9] and [10]) and Best Supporting Actor/Actress awards ([11] and [12]). 1. Believing that only English language sources are acceptable in articles is not a common misconception among editors. 2. Best Supporting Actor/Actress categories have been unanimously kept in AfD's ([13] and [14]) and are among the least controversial award categories. 3. Both usernames have gone to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) and asked to have the AVN Hall of Fame criteria removed from PORNBIO. There is no controversy over the AVN Hall of Fame criteria in PORNBIO and not a single user has agreed with Раціональне анархіст and Redban to have it removed. It is too big of a coincidence for two editors to share the same unpopular opinions and behave in the exact same disruptive manner (both users have started over a dozen AfD's each at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, many of them for porn stars who meet WP's notability guidelines). Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would be inconceivable that more than one person would ever disagree with you? Everyone's gotta be a sock, eh? Pax 16:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a WP policy against users removing comments from AfD? Specifically, comments made by other users? I'm asking because every time I see other users retract their own statements, they cross it out like this instead of erasing it. If users really can't remove their own comments, they certainly cannot remove other user's comments. My last comment above was removed by Раціональне анархіст but I reverted the edit. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's very rich: you revert an edit removing your personal attack while leaving, in the reverting edit comment, an assured assertion - then stipulate out loud (in the comment I am responding to right now) that you don't know one way or the other. You know what? I'm fine with leaving it in; I want everybody to see what you're up to. (In lieu of a warning on your talk page over combative personal attacks, consider it delivered here.) Pax 16:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a personal attack. You have voted delete in other AfD's and I haven't responded to your vote there. This is because you are entitled to your own opinion. What you are not entitled to is voting twice in an AfD under different usernames in order to try manipulating the outcome of the discussion. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again you accuse me by insinuation of doing something I have not done. As the saying goes: put up or shut up. Pax 18:24, 6 January 2015 (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/Whitney_Stevens_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1144342956"