Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abella Anderson (4th nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. The community is clearly still split about what to accept as indications of notability in the porn topic area, and this discussion reflects this.  Sandstein  18:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Abella Anderson
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Anderson is not notable as a pornographic actress or as a model. The awards she has won are not notable, and nominations for awards do not count for notability for pornographic performers. The article has been deleted twice in the past, and once survived as no consensus without any strong arguments for keeping it. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO#1 with NightMoves Best New Starlet (Fan's Choice) award, which is well-known/significant and not scene-related/ensemble. In 2002, the St. Petersburg Times noted that the NightMoves Awards were "the third largest in the porn industry". Other porn industry award ceremonies held in 2002 include AVN, XRCO, Venus, and NINFA, which are all considered well-known/significant industry awards by consensus, satisfying PORNBIO (,, , , & ). If at least two out of the four awards I've listed are smaller than NightMoves and still considered well-known/significant enough to meet PORNBIO, than NightMoves also satisfies PORNBIO. NightMoves is also the porn industry's third longest running awards show. Best New Starlet is a newcomer award, and those have overwhelming consensus favoring their inclusion in PORNBIO. Most participants at Articles for deletion/Keri Sable, a recipient of the exact same award, voted to keep the article. Three of the keep votes regarded her NightMoves win as a reason (one by me, the others "per Rebecca1990"). Anderson also passes PORNBIO#3, "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", for her roles in the film Clapping for the Wrong Reasons and the music video 3005 (song), appearances which have generated a lot of mainstream media coverage for her. The fact that all three of her award wins were fan voted is also evidence that she passes WP:ENTERTAINER#2 ("Has a large fan base"). Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited so these other awards have no relevance and do not transmit notability to anything else. Saying the other awards are "smaller" has no meaning and is imprecise and without context. That is POV.
 * I think the above editor needs to educate themselves on notability guidelines and policies rather than erecting a wall of irrelevant text. Also, where are the independent reliable sources that say she has a large fan base? And how large? This is conjecture and another POV statement. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO, won 3x individual awards. Subtropical -man   talk  (en-2)  13:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - she has various individual awards (AVN-award is especially notable but Nightmoves is also notable enough), so she clears the hurdles set by WP:PORNBIO + on top of that she has some mainstream media appearances. -- fdewaele, 18 August 2016, 15:36 CET.
 * delete the third largest pile of bollocks in a pile of bollocks is still a pile of bollocks. Does this properly pass GNG? No. Then this fails. Any if you want to leave me a civility warning, you can shove that up the same pile of bollocks you are desperately referring to. Spartaz Humbug! 13:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment That's not even an argument but just some inane rambling. -- fdewaele, 18 August 2016, 16:50 CET.
 * User:Fdewaele's statement is of course inaccurate. User:Spartaz said this obviously fails GNG - and of course it does fail. That's why there are these circumventing arguments above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST, WP:MODEL No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. No noteworthy creative or artistic contribution to the film industry. She is of no historical significance. Not really an actress or actor in films or theater and no way to determine if she has a "cult" following because this is not noted in reliable sources - fails WP:ENTERTAINER.


 * Saying "Largest" is a nebulous word and has no meaning due to its inaccuracy and imprecision; especially in the context of an audience - and has no meaning in regards to the number of people watching the ceremony - that happens all the time her in the US from high school basketball, to professional baseball, to the National Football League. So, as an aside, she has not won significant film awards as denoted by the current WP:PORNBIO segment on the WP:N WP:BIO page. The NightMoves awards are not significant in this context, and pretty much a straw man. In fact, I can't find any mention of this award on a Google search and or on Google news - and this shows how insignificant these awards are.


 * Other AfDs (a linked by Rebecca1990) have no bearing on this AfD - and these do not confer Wikipedia wide consensus due to the small number of participants. Does anyone really think 5, 7, or 10 Ivotes changes policy or guidelines and so on? Only Wikipedia-wide RFCs result in Wikipedia-wide consensus. And citing other AfDs is WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. Regarding the Ken Sable AfD mentioned above - it may be that "keep" got the most votes but obviously "delete" had the better policy based arguments. I can't see how disregarding significant coverage in independent reliable sources is acceptable. Also, I agree that the above is simply piling on. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not seeing any sources that demonstrate she has won any of the awards mentioned in the first Ivote. Without reliable sources to back this up, these claims are simply blue wiki links and WP:OR. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC). An industry trade publication (vested interest) and the company produced publication, in the refs, which produces company announcements, are not independent reliable sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- trivial fan-based awards and fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The claimed awards are not substantial enough to outweigh the subject's failure to even approach meeting GNG requirements. "Fan" awards affiliated with more significant awards do not WP:INHERIT either notability or significance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep THis one isn't even close. Multiple major industry awards automatically passes her under WP:PORNBIO #1. I notice the same anti-porn voters trying to eliminate a lot of porn actress pages; this must violate some kind of guideline. But that's off-topic.  On topic: Anderson qualifies under Wikipedia guidelines as notable. Easily. ArchieOof (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: "automatically passes" is not how Wikipedia's notability guidelines work, as I understand it. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Automatically passes" is a misunderstanding of the function of PORNBIO or winning an award. First, this award has not been determined to be significant, as it has no significant independent coverage in reliable sources - given that this is not the same as coverage of the AVN Awards in the aggregate, known as AVN Awards. PORNBIO is an indicator this person might be notable. Other criteria still have to be satisfied. For example, industry related promotional materials, her twitter account, and passing mention in articles about another topic, as the only coverage of this biography means it fails GNG and BIO. This means it falls short of (and is failing) BLP criteria which requires high quality sources, which these are not. I suppose a short hand way of saying all this is - sorry, but there is no such thing as automatic notability - it is a myth. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 03:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete In general, the purpose of the special notability guidelines is to provide a tool for quickly determining when a topic is highly likely to have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Accordingly, we tend to keep articles about Olympic athletes, state and provincial legislators and winners of major prizes like the Nobel, Pulitzer and MacArthur Fellowships because experience tells us that the reliable sources are almost certainly out there for these topics with an in-depth search. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources have been uncovered for this person. Winning an award which is in itself marginally notable does not automatically confer notability on all its recipients. The sources are twitter, blogs, press releases about a third tier industry insider award, porn databases and so on. The current sources do not show notability. I am not an "anti-porn" editor, I have no moral objection to porn, and I want this encyclopedia to have biographies of actually notable porn performers. But PORNBIO is a failure because it encourages the creation of articles about non-notable porn performers. Every industry has internal trade publications, trade shows and insider back scratching awards. We do not need biographies of non-notable locksmiths, remodeling contractors, machine shop owners or porn performers, just because they might have won insignificant industry insider awards. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, per rebecca1990 Pwolit iets (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think it's well established that in any field of endeavor,for WP purposes, best new whatever and the like is a polite way of saying "not yet notable, but might be some day" -- they're explicit an award for novices, regardless of field.  "readers choice" awards similarly are usually not considered to shownw notability -- they're basically equivalent to Popular, which is explocitly not the same as Notable--in any field. (There may be some exceptions, but they need to be proven to be considered significant in each instance)  DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep rebecca1990 clearly show that WP:PORNBIO and I see no argument by the opposers that the article fails pornbio. --I am One of Many (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, AVN Awards are of course notable enough. Having been voted as the best of all webcamers is not really a downgrader, as well, but rather enlarging the basis of that category from the biggest prize in porn industry. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that it's not an AVN Award, it's an AVN Fan Award, a recently contrived addition to their unending list of honorifics. As demonstrated by the Jayden Jaymes AFD a while back, and confirmed by an extensive DRV discussion, AVN Fan Awards do not demonstrate notability. As I pointed out in that AFD, ""AVN Award" gets nearly 600 GBooks hits. while "AVN Fan Award" gets only 2". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First, this award has not been determined to be significant, as it has no significant independent coverage in reliable sources - given that this is not the same as coverage of the AVN Awards in the aggregate, known as AVN Awards. PORNBIO is an indicator this person might be notable. Other criteria still have to be satisfied. For example, industry related promotional materials, her twitter account, and passing mention in articles about another topic, as the only coverage of this biography means it fails GNG and BIO. This means it falls short of (and is failing) BLP criteria which requires high quality sources, which these are not. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.