Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Molinari (2nd 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 keep. There are substantial arguments by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Guy 1890 and Wikiuser20102011 that the topic meets WP:GNG which have not been contested (a mere "fails Notability" is not enough). Concerns about promotional tone should be handled by editing the article, merely having an article is not usually considered an advertisement under policy. Seems also like the article might need a cleanup of its current sources and links (Otr500) so I'll tag it for cleanup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Adriana Molinari
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Molinari is not even close to notable for being a pornagraphic film actress. There is not even a claim that she was ever nominated for an award. Considering the industry gives out awards like candy, this means she was if possible negatively impactful. Her having her standing as Miss New Hampshire USA revoked is worth noting in the article on Miss New Hampshire USA, but not enough to justify a stand alone article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment In addition the claim that she passes GNG put forward in the previous discussion was not at all based on sources. the sources in the article are majority to non-reliable databses that seek to catalogue anyone involved in the creation of pornographic films, which is not at all a goal in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a notability guideline, and sources that engage in indiscriminate inclusion of everything can not be cited towards meeting that guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Molinari meets the GNG. She had three separate instances of news coverage -- when she became Miss New Hampshire, when her title was taken away, and years later when she went into porn. The newspaper column used as an article reference is a good example of the sort of coverage she received, and provides more reliable substantive information than the sources in a typical porn bio here do, by a wide margin. The fact that early 1990s print coverage in not generally accessible online does not make it less substantive or reliable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- nn as a state-level pageant winner, as has been established at the long string of related AfDs, the vast majority of which closed as delete or redirect. There was a minority of articles where subject went on to have more or less notable career, and these were kept. In this case, the subject's career in adult entertainment is not notable. So if you are adding 0 + 0, you are still getting a zero.
 * Also note that the subject's career in porn is under a different (stage) name. For BLP considerations, with very marginal notability such as this, I suggest that the article be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BASIC.  Montanabw (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. According to her long defunct official website, in addition to being on A Current Affair, she was also on Hard Copy, Inside Edition and Entertainment Tonight as well as Geraldo, Donahue, Riki (sic) Lake, Howard Stern, MTV when she was Miss Nude World.1 As for her using another name for being in porn, two different reliable sources cited in the article have connected Molinari and Alex Taylor. In her porn movie Dethroned, which was based on the events of her life and her being stripped of her title for being a stripper, they list all her titles won on the back of the boxcover, so she obviously wasn't trying to totally disconnect the two. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:ADVERTISING. This poor "faded glory" biography isn't even about the subject but the screen name not even mentioned in the lead. The reference to the advertising list of porn movies is just that and biographical information is used from internet archived "WayBackMachine" to get vague information. Vivid Entertainment, courtesy of Internet Adult Film Database, is not even a reliable source. All "porn stars" have some story of how they got there, usually promoted by the entertainment company selling the subjects "goods" so there is a conflict of interest using these as a source. All porn stars don't need an article on Wikipedia, certainly not one where her only Early life biographical information is "She moved to Hampton, New Hampshire from South America with her parents when she was in seventh grade.". A WP:BLP is mandated by several Wikipedia criteria to be held to a higher standard, and this just simply doesn't even have a medium standard. The reference that she was on A Current Affair is simply a newspaper article with passing mention stating "She appeared on "A Current Affair...". A reader would then have to go to the "External links" and read content. This is of concern to me because IMDb contains content that is more than likely not appropriate with personal information such as: "Trivia: Since May 2009, she works as a Clinic Manager at American Laser Centers. This is so not cool and could lead to issues. Wikipedia should never advance allowing this type of personal information. Also, the biographical content there (mini-bio) is "Busty'n'lusty blonde bombshell Alex Taylor". This is just not content Wikipedia needs to advance as trivia and invasion of privacy, to use as a "proof" of notability for article inclusion. IMDb doesn't even list her being on A Current Affair but does list, at the bottom of her porn videos, "Sin City Spectacular" in which her screen (or stage) name is only listed with no other information.
 * Please note: Wikipedia is not censored, so porn content is certainly allowable as long as referenced by reliable secondary sources. I would however, think that editors, and possible Wikipedia at large, would have issues with advancing a biography where content includes links to other content with such things as videos titled "Where the Boys Aren't 12" or "Where the Boys Aren't 13". I can think of a whole lot of reasons why connecting porn videos to the word "boys" and connotations (if not actual) to ages would be a big Red Flag, and I am talking legally not morally. This is not a slippery slope we should get near.


 * On a more graphical point: The listing of the external links to Internet Adult Film Database (DO NOT CLICK IF YOU FIND GRAPHICAL SEX SCENES OFFENSIVE) brings up a nice picture of the supposed subject. There is a link to "Performer Credits" that shows 17 gorgeous women that can be somehow possibly be interpreted as art, BUT!!! Just below "Submit bio corrections" are live video links to Punishtube.com listed as "The most extreme site ever made". This site splashes advertisements that shows women, that appears to be in extreme pain, having sex with hands around their necks and painful facial expressions, or what could be interpreted as being raped (violently) by multiple people, or with their hands over their mouth and a horribly painful look on their face as they are having sex. Adult Film Database is less not as graphical but pretty much a tits and ass advertising site also. This is what we are ultimately allowing on Wikipedia with these advertising bio's and that is more than likely the real push in the $13.33 billion (US only) porn industry: Free advertising. Some editors may like this and that is fine but is it encyclopedic? Otr500 (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - NOTE: I have recently, extensively edited the article under consideration here. The subject (who operated under a stage name as well, which is not uncommon at all) has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media"/passes GNG with coverage in The Spokesman-Review, The Pittsburgh Press, The Toledo Blade, the Associated Press, A Current Affair, Entertainment Tonight, Inside Edition, and in some Knight-Ridder Newspapers. The subject here was also selected as Miss New Hampshire USA in 1991 before having her "crown" removed, in part because of the above mainstream media coverage. As was noted in the first AfD on this same subject in 2015, BLP1E doesn't apply as the subject here is clearly not "a low-profile individual".
 * The subject here doesn't appear to have an active official website, so there are no real "promotional" issues here. Also, an IMDb (which is reliable source pretty much only for filmographies) external link is very common in thousands & thousands of actor Wikipedia articles, and IAFD (which is a reliable source for adult filmographies & basic biographic information only) & AFDB external links are common in many, many Wikipedia articles of this type as well. Neither Vivid Entertainment nor IMDb is used as a citation in the article under consideration here. Commentary at AfD related to "I don't like it" or "it's unencyclopedic" carries no weight either. Guy1890 (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 20:06, 9 October 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.