Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariana Jollee


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Ariana Jollee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Negligible independent reliable sourcing. "Superslut of the Year" is not a significant award, and if Wikipedia were a sensible place it would be seen as a BLP violation. Tendentiously deprodded by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as fails PORNBIO and GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk
 * No one's arguing that she passes GNG, but how does she fail PORNBIO? She has two non-scene/ensemble wins, which is more than enough to satisfy the guideline. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)\
 * I never said anyone was did I ?, Because they're not notable awards and winning an award for "Superslut of the year" is as cheap as it gets, She has a lovely profile over at Pornhub (which I just found out can't be linked thanks to the blacklist!) so it's not as if we're disadvantaging anyone by deleting this poorly referenced article. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't "cheap". The porn industry's most prestigious award is AVN's Female Performer of the Year and there is a very strong correlation between that award and XRCO's Superslut. 10 out of 11 Superslut winners have been nominated for/won Female Performer of the Year. Jollee was nominated for AVN's Female Performer of the Year award in 2005 and 2006, the same years in which she won XRCO's Superslut. AVN nominates 15 people every year for Female Performer of the Year while XRCO narrows AVN's list down to the strongest contenders for their own Female Performer of the Year award. Jollee was such a strong contender for Female Performer of the Year in 2005, that she made it onto XRCO's elite Female Performer of the Year nominees list of only 5 people. Now, I personally think that an AVN Female Performer of the Year nomination should be enough to pass PORNBIO. It is quite a reasonable request. I can assure you all I'd never ask for any other nomination into PORNBIO, not even Female Performer of the Year from XBIZ/XRCO/etc. or Best New Starlet, but the fact there's over 30 AVN Female Performer of the Year nominees without WP articles is preposterous. Despite being a reasonable addition to PORNBIO, it would probably not happen, but at the very least can we keep the current PORNBIO guideline? PORNBIO notability is already far enough from real-world notability, stop trying to take it even further from that by expanding its exclusions. PORNBIO#1 ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.") is clearly met by XRCO's Superslut award. No good argument has been given against it so far in this AfD besides "I don't like the category because it has a funny name". You're all reacting to the Superslut category as if it were an award for "Best Amputee Porn Star", "Best Midget Porn Star", or some other obscure genre where it's nearly impossible for performers in it to become notable because of its unpopularity. Evil Angel produces pornography so extreme, that it has led to obscenity charges, and it is among the porn industry's top companies, which demonstrates that extreme sex acts are part of mainstream pornography. Some porn stars who perform extreme sex acts become notable for doing so, so it makes sense for porn award shows to recognize them. Out of the 13 years the award has been give out, only two recipients of it have won it twice, and Jollee is one of them. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Little reliable sourcing or coverage; significant coverage is only by one source. Esquivalience  t 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No one's arguing that she passes GNG, but she does pass PORNBIO, which is enough, by consensus, for articles to be kept. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Does it pass a) significant and b) well-known? Sure, the article on the award itself prominently says in passive voice (quite against UNDUE) that it has been deemed the Academy Award for X-rated media, but the organization that issues the awards is not the AMPAS or SAG-AFTRA for pornography, and I only find moderate coverage of the award itself (past the level of notability, but not "significant or well-known"). Esquivalience  t 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, XRCO is a well-known/significant award. WP:PORNBIO itself explicitly states that an XRCO Hall of Fame induction is enough to keep an article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly passes WP:PORNBIO#1 ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award"). PORNBIO only excludes scene-related and ensemble categories. Superslut is not scene-related/ensemble. You can mock the category's name all you want, but that isn't a reasonable argument to exclude it from PORNBIO. Porn performers are known for many different things. The willingness of some to perform extreme sex acts is one of them. Performing extreme sex acts in PORN films is a perfectly legitimate reason to give someone a PORN award. That's the whole purpose of porn award shows, to reward outstanding porn performances. And how is this a "BLP violation". If Jollee had any qualms about being called a "superslut" she wouldn't have performed extreme sex acts on film for all to see, won XRCO's Superslut award TWICE, and proudly pose for photos with her trophy. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rebecca, please stop misrepresenting the terms of PORNBIO. PORNBIO does not say that only scene-related awards are deemed to fail PORNBIO, and that all other awards qualify. Other awards (relating to niche categories, body parts, for example) have been found by consensus to fail the well-known/significant standard. You may not like the consensus, but denying it exists is tendentious and disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not misrepresenting PORNBIO. Consensus in AfDs has repeatedly shown that all non-scene/ensemble categories from well-known/significant ceremonies meet PORNBIO. You've keep claiming that niche and body part categories have consensus to exclude from PORNBIO, but have never provided evidence of it. In fact if it were true, it would say so in PORNBIO. It's preposterous that you would even suggest we exclude niche and body part categories. There is no logical reason to do so. The niche awards go hand-in-hand with PORNBIO#2 ("Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre") and since one of the things porn stars are best known for is their body parts, it makes sense to have body part awards. Don't get me wrong, I do think Best Actress awards are evidence of notability and think they should continue to be accepted by PORNBIO, but I consider body part awards to be even bigger evidence of notability than Best Actress. There are simply more people viewing pornography for the boobs and butts than they are for the acting/plots. Porn stars known for having large breasts or a big butt are better known for having that than the ones known for their acting skills are known for their acting skills. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For all your huffing and puffing about The Big Bad Wolfowitz, you keep evading the point that PORNBIO quite plainly does not say that only scene-related award categories fail the well-known and significant standard. As Morbidthoughts told you on the PORNBIO talkpage, "The debates or contention in AFDs/DRVs like Deauxma and Elexis Monroe have been whether their nominations are significant enough to satisfy PORNBIO simply because they are performer awards. No, they are not and consensus had made clear when we last edited PORNBIO that the category is important in determining significance.[7] The AFDs and DRVs have made clear that the MILF of the Year nominations are not significant enough not that PORNBIO is flawed. Given that in this very AFD you are also arguing that "she does pass PORNBIO, which is enough, by consensus, for articles to be kept" -- which contradicts the express language in WP:Notability (people), of which PORNBIO is a component that "meeting one or more [of the components] does not guarantee that a subject should be included", it's clear that the position you argue regarding notability is contradicted by longstanding consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That quote is from a discussion on what to exclude from PORNBIO and the consensus of it was to only exclude nominations, not any type of award category. Consensus is the outcome of a discussion, not a user's opinion in it. Not only that, you're also providing a quote on a completely different award that is irrelevant in this AfD. The quote also happens to be from a user who has voted to keep this article below, so you are totally misinterpreting it to refer to Jollee's awards when it clearly doesn't. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete fails the requirement of WP:GNG of having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not having substantial coverage in mainstream media, the award is not in a major category but one of the endless spurious categories that seem to exist only for publicity purposes and inventing some sort of fake notability for projects such as wikipedia. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * XRCO's Superslut category does not "exist only for publicity purposes". If that were the case, its recipients would only be performers with publicists. It is very unlikely for Jollee to have had a publicist during her career, otherwise an AVN search for "Ariana Jollee" under "Company News" (aka "Press Release") would yield results for PR about her. There is only one result for Jollee in the search, and it's by a company promoting a film she happens to be in the cast of, not by a publicist promoting her. That PR was also released many years after she won the awards, so her wins were in no way influenced by any publicity at all. The entire XRCO Awards aren't influenced by publicity. If they were, performers like Aurora Snow, who has stated on numerous occasions (interviews, Daily Beast articles, college speeches, etc.) that she initially entered the adult film industry only to pay for school and planned to have a short-term/low-profile career she would forget about after quitting, wouldn't have won so many XRCO Awards early in her career. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOREASON, vote null. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   22:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * De;ete Superslut? Really? Fials PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz Humbug! 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Superslut? Really?" is a perfect example of what I was referring to when I said "mock the category's name all you want, but that isn't a reasonable argument to exclude it from PORNBIO" above. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I believe she passes PORNBIO not just because of her awards but because of criteria 2 for having made unique contributions to a genre. Her 65 guy creampie scene is notorious, having been written about by Robert Jensen. He devotes 12 pages to analyzing her and this scene. Another author devotes 4 pages to this.. Along with the AVN citations in the article, she passes the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete totally fails the guidelines for notability of pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The notability guideline for pornographic actors is "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." XRCO is a well-known and significant industry award and Superslut is not a scene-related or ensemble category. PORNBIO only requires one win and Jollee has two. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep While one might find the name of the awards she won distasteful (and I somewhat agree), it is an individual body of work award and has been given out for long enough to be considered well-known. She has received a fair amount of coverage in and out of porn that she would pass the GNG as well in my opinion. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This article's history shows there are at least two other users on WP who believe Jollee passes our notability guidelines based on her awards (Cavarrone & Subtropical-man). Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Boy, that sure looks like an attempt to commit a WP:CANVASS violation, since editors "must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". And there are quite a few editors who have no sympathy for your position, but I don't go around trying to call their attention to deletion discussions or cast pseudo!votes in their name. Even for porn promoters, this is a new level of shenanigans. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1 editor who I admit raises concerns, the other being nonsensical and invalid ..... Nice try tho!. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Canvassing means NOTIFYING users of a discussion, which I did not do. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - meet of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   09:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG which states that for an article to exist, the subject must've had coverage from independant reliable sources. — Omni Flames  ( talk   contribs ) 05:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read the discussion? Because then you should precisely explain why there are absolutely NO independant sources in your opinion although two books dealing with a rather "exceptional" not common scene were stated above. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I previously closed this as "delete", but after discussion on my talk page I have come to the view that if one counts only the "delete" and "keep" opinions that actually discuss the sources rather than merely assert notability or non-notability, we have near parity. Previous contributors are invited to discuss why precisely the notability guidelines are or aren't met.  Sandstein  09:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet notability requirements. VanEman (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Having performed in an extraordinary Film with 65 partners – which is even for the unholy porn industry not everyday-stuff – sounds like a clear unique feature/unique selling point (or how one would call that in English) which has been covered and examined in two serious books. I can't imagine and don't want to watch such a film but calling that a unique contribution would in my opinion be the only possibility. Also her serious, personal XRCO Awards are of course no fun-awards just because of their namings. Neither are they promotional as they are giving out the only independent porn critics' awards in the US. XRCO is using some figurative, let's call it, "poetic" namings for their categories like "Unsung Swordsman", "New Stud", "Orgasmic Oralist" or "Superslut". And when reading a bit into the above book sources (that moreover state her to be one of the first well known gonzo performers) one will understand why she has been awarded as Superslut: because it's perfectely hitting the truth. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per PORNBIO. Her two Superslut of the Year awards—while apparently drawing the ire of some—meet PORNBIO point 1. 65 Guy Creampie was an "iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster" film and, in my opinion, foreshadowed works like American Gokkun 8 (JM Productions 2008); her performance in Cremapie likely meets PORNBIO point 2. As WP:BIO instructs: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any" (emphasis added) of the specific guideline points.  Rebb  ing   01:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting WP:PORNBIO through awards notable and significant to and through coverage by her industry, even if in non-genre media.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion has devolved into a bad joke. It's bizarre that proponents of keeping the article have cited as sufficient coverage an academic source (Jensen) which actually concludes "What conclusions should we draw about Ariana Jollee? From this limited information, it would be folly to claim to know anything" and goes on to state "If someone were to ask me 'Who is Ariana Jollie?' I would be hard pressed to offer much of an answer". In other words, the most substantive, reliable source to be found declares that reliably sourced information about this person cannot be found. That should be taken as a strong, and unrefuted, case that the subject fails the GNG. The only efforts the keep !voters make (with one exception) is simply handwaving and pointing to cites which, on examination, don't offer significant coverage. What theae sources boil down to is little more than the unuseful assertion that Ariana Jollee, like most of the women presented in "gang bang" pornography, is reduced to a cipher, and the statement that Jollee is a cipher is not a sufficient basis for an article. Similarly, the keep proponents assert, without anything resembling reliable sourcing, that all ofthe industry marketing claims about Jollee's single performance of supposed importance is factually accurate. This defies the simple and well-established fact that porn marketing is dominated by what the wrestling industry refers to as "Kayfabe", in-universe fiction that is presented as fact. Such kayfabe surrounding "gang bang" pornography is notoriously fictive; for example, one Jasmin St. Claire, formerly promoted as a "gang bang" record holder, now admits that her "extraordinary" performance was "among the biggest cons ever pulled off in the porn business". And there is exactly zero evidence that the "Superslut" meets the well-known/significant standard of PORNBIO (indeed, unusually for porn awards, it has virtually no GBooks hits (aside from compilations of Wikipedia articles, which don't count toward notability or significance); instead, the keep proponents generally make insinuations about the motives of delete !voters rather than address genuine policy- or guideline- based claims. Not even the award-giving organization provides and explanation of the eligibility requirements for or the criteria by which the "award" recipient is selected, a strong, strong signal of its insignificance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this discussion has devolved into a bad joke because these page is trolling by total delectionist user. WP:GNG is not a requirement and compulsory, this is one of the notability guidelines. Articles in Wikipedia not must meet of the GNG, however, if article meet this is automatical argument for keep. WP:GNG say: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Simply. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   19:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the proper word is not bizarre, HW, but ironic. You're distorting the words of an anti-pornography critic to make the argument that Jollee is not notable despite the fact that he devotes 12 pages to her. He's asking what could a viewer really know about Jollee the person rather than the performer which fits into the popular feminist argument that pornography objectifies and debases women. His actual rhetorical conclusion that you omitted, was "So, maybe  the  important  question  isn’t  “Who  is  Ariana Jollee?” Maybe the right question is “Who is Laura David?". However, let me quote some other words from him about the performer.
 * "By this logic, the women in pornography—especially the really nasty  ones—are  the  ultimate  women.  By  that  standard, Ariana Jollee may well be the perfect woman in a world defined by  pornography,  someone  whose  public  persona  and  work  on the  screen  embody  the  concept  of  nasty."
 * "This nastiest  of  the  filthy  women  in  pornography,  this woman about to turn 22 years old, turns to a man who makes his living in the pornography industry and asks for his approval, asking if her sex with 65 men was a “good gangbang.”
 * Hey look at that. Acknowledgment that she is notable in her field. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What bullshit. Note that the section you quote begins with "By this logic", and the "logic" referred to is the standard porn marketing trope that women really want to be whores. That's not a perspective Wikipedia articles are written from, even if the Howard Stern show is. Jensen devotes 12 pages not to Jollee herself, but to how the woman featured in a piece of gang bang pornography that is fairly typical (despite its elaborate apparatus) is rendered a cipher by the industry's standard practices. The factual content regarding Jollee herself in that piece is limited to the writer's lack of information about her. Claiming that that's sufficient to support a BLP makes about as much sense as writing a BLP of John Malkovich based entirely on reviews of Being John Malkovich. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.   (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Really, that's what comes down to it. Is this article really about the performer/character or the person that is behind that. That the character may be fictional does not make her less notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent sources.--TM 22:08, 17 April 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.