Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amia Miley


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Amia Miley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The mainstream appearance is described as a fan film. Fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz Humbug! 18:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Passing mention in a number of news sources (Vanity Fair etc) for roles in a TV show as a major talent in the adult industry  and passing mentions for small role in a popular short film  Last time I checked fan films dont have their own wikipedia pages Power/Rangers aren't directed by notable directors Joseph Kahn and produced by the backers of major motion pictures Adi Shankar. Also per WP:ANYBIO criteria 1 ('has been nominated for one several times'); awards that are well known and notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages should be well known and significant enough to meet the criteria of 'well known.' Combination of multiple non-in depth mentions and noms meets WP:BIO basic criteria/additional criteria.--Savonneux (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - You cannot simply add up a bunch of passing/trivial mentions in sources and declare WP:N to be met, and quite frankly it is embarrassing to see someone put that forth as a genuine argument. A porn industry award is not in any way, shape, or form a "well-known and significant award or honor", so WP:ANYBIO is a failure.  Multiple nominations are explicitly ruled out by WP:PORNBIO as well, so as the subject meets none of the project's thresholds of notability, delete. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * PORNBIO doesn't mention nominations. Without mentioning them, it can't explicitly rule them out. -- Irn (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * After extensive discussions and a formal RFC, an "overwhelming consensus" determined that such nominations do not contribute significantly to notability and should be disregarded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that I don't have the time to read the whole RFC, but if this edit adequately represents that consensus, then all it's saying is that the nominations themselves are not sufficient to confer notability. That is a far cry from saying that they cannot contribute to notability. If the consensus is that nominations are worthless and should not be considered at all, PORNBIO does not reflect that. -- Irn (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I had thought there was wording in Pornbio to reflect the RfC findings, but apparently not.   Either way, the end result is the same however we arrive at it; nominations do not count in the slightest towards notability. Tarc (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Practice in prior PORNBIO revisions has indicated that when a criterion is struck, the factor is simply discounted absent a specific showing that it has led to independent reliable-source coverage. Since the number-of-releases criterion was removed, for example, that factor has consistently been discounted entirely in deletion discussions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be singling you out by responding to your comment, and this comment should probably go elsewhere (but where?), but that is a terrible practice. That a small group of people who regularly participate in AFD discussions have a different consensus that goes beyond what is written in the guidelines is anti-transparent and needlessly complicates matters while making it more difficult for other editors to participate in these discussions. -- Irn (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Savonneux.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are plenty of "well-known and significant industry awards" out there, and many of them have Wikipedia articles written about them. The issue though is that apparently the subject here hasn't won any of those awards, and the PORNBIO inclusion standard is intentionally set higher than the ANYBIO standard for a variety of reasons.
 * FYI, being a FAME Award "Finalist" just means that a performer passed the intial, two-tiered award nomination process that the FAME Awards used to have. It doesn't mean that the performer actually won that award. Quite frankly, I don't know what the "AWMBD" is that's referenced in the article in question here either. Guy1890 (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You realize that any bio can qualify under WP:ANYBIO right? Just because someone is X doesn't mean they are only evaluated on criteria of WP:BIOX. If the inclusion standard for WP:PORNBIO is higher than for WP:ANYBIO there is no call to only use the criteria of PORNBIO, ANYBIO still applies. Hence: any bio.--Savonneux (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The kind of argument that you're apparently trying to advocate for (basically ignoring PORNBIO & trying to use to ANYBIO to evaluate whether or not to keep or delete a pornography-related BLP) has been tried here at AfD in the past and failed many times before. Whether one likes it or not, the PORNBIO inclusion standard has been raised well above the ANYBIO standard over time specifically in order to limit the number of pornography-related BLPs. I'm not saying that I agree with that trend here on Wikipedia, but it exists none-the-less. Guy1890 (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete fails the guidelines for pornographic performers. This person has not won any well known and significant award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No case for meeting PORNBIO. The first True Detective source just recaps the second, and therefore is not cumulative. The principal source reports that she was cast as an extra, providing no substantive biographical information; while slightly better than a passing mention, it's clearly insufficient to establish notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2015 (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.