Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Bitoni (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   delete. especially due to strength of arguments from nominator and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz  Go  Phightins  !  00:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Audrey Bitoni
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable pornographic actress whose article is supported by poor sources. Fails both PORNBIO in that her "awards" are not significant and the general notability guidelines due to the paucity of reliable sources that exist for her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I disagree with the notion that Audrey Bitoni is a "non-notable" pornstar. She's been around since 2006. She's made 234 titles as per IAFD, including scenes for elite companies such as Brazzers and Bangbros. Her twitter page has 134,000 followers even though she never responds to her fans' tweets (For reference, Gracie Glam has 91,000 followers on twitter). She has an AVN Award nomination for Best New Starlet. The cited sources are mostly interviews, some of which are even videos (So you have direct, visual proof). Redban (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Redban
 * That direct visual "proof" is a promotional video from Brazzers, falling under WP:NOTRELIABLE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The ZZinsider video is hardly "promotional." Is there a reasonable cause to believe she lied in that interview, given the general tone and the non-sexual answer relating to her name's origin? It's not as though the interview was part of a porn flick. Furthermore, her page uses many other interview sources from radioshows, magazines, and internet sites.108.41.160.197 (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Redban
 * It is a promotional video by Brazzers and it wasn't even uploaded to Youtube by them.. The whole point of this AfD is that the article based these poor sources does not satisfy the notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Weak Keep  - I wish that a performer who has this many videos and brushes with various awards had accomplished more, but on Wikipedia popularity is not enough. I'll do some looking for content, but if I can't find anything worthwhile, I will change this to Delete. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's worth much to you, I found out that she was nominated for "New Starlet of the Year" in 2008 for XBiz. That plus the 3 AVN nominations is solid for a woman who has done 234 films. Gianna Michaels did 200+ more scenes than Bitoni, and she has 4 AVN awards and 1 XBiz, a similar rate to Bitoni. 108.41.160.197 (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Redban
 * I appreciate the info and I think its fairly well known how much I stand up for the under-represented ones of society, but even I have to face facts. At the very least, we should Wikify this article so that its easier to bring back once she wins an AVN or similar award. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I consider myself pretty damn creative when it comes to extracting content and prose from a source, but there has to be something to work with first. I messaged her purported PR rep asking for sources to help out, so we'll see what happens. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Enough delete articles - after Phoenix Marie, and now this! Audrey Bitoni is a significant personality and has a place here. She deserves a Wikipedia article over a number of amateur football players and some terrorists and politicians. It is a popular star in the world! Greetings from Bulgaria!--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's sound and accurate analysis. There is no credible claim that the subject passes PORNBIO, with only nominations and insignificant employee-of-the month type awards. No independent sourcing as required by the GNG and by BLP, just blogs, promotional interviews, press releases, and data dumps. No reliable sourcing for any biographical content; none meeting the standard of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Just another BLP contrived from primary and promotional sources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Our sources are Xcitement Magazine, ZZBabes, ZZinsider (video), Tampa Deja Vu (Video), XXXWasteland, XBiz, XtremeMagazine, and a Mark Madden (video) interview for 105.9 radio. Plus, we have the usual IAFD.com.  Granted, these sources may seem like trashy, unreliable "press releases" and/or "promotional interviews," but you apparently forget that she's a pornstar. You're not going to get any information from the federal government or from CNN about Audrey Bitoni. The sources we're using for her page are the best we can do for her, or for any pornstar except Jenna Jameson, Sasha Grey, and Ron Jeremy. Either this page remains or you remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia. 108.41.160.197 (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Redban
 * If 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia don't have sources that would meet our standards for living people in other professions then you are right, we should remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia. The whole point of our notability standards is that we need independent and reliable sources, not "the best we can do". 82.9.185.151 (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. NorthAmerica1000 03:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. Fails WP:PORNBIO. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per above arguments. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   15:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Per which above arguments? None of them provide any evidence for notability as defined in our guidelines. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Doesn't seem to pass WP:PORNBIO.  However, instead of this page being deleted, I'd suggest that PORNBIO needs to be changed so that obviously notable performers such as Audrey can remain on Wikipedia.  The current guidelines basically include a handful of award winners, and exclude everyone else. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And what's wrong with that? We shouldn't be hosting articles about living people, especially when they are claimed to be involved in activities that many people find distasteful, without proper independent reliable sources. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that reliable sources are necessary. However, whether or not some people find porn to be "distasteful" should definitely NOT be a factor in determining whether someone is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia.  And narrowing the list of Wikipedia-worthy performers to award winners is especially problematic -- we don't demand that mainstream actors or athletes be award winners for inclusion on Wikipedia, so it seems like we're holding porn performers to an unfairly high standard. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We hold mainstream actors and athletes to the standard of having coverage in independent reliable sources, just as we do porn actors, so we are actually being scrupulously fair. And our inclusion criteria are not based on whether an article subject is "worthy". 82.9.185.151 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Fails GNG without significant coverage by reliable sources. The article's sources are low quality and I'm only finding press releases in searches. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The article fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete not one of the keep votes has any semblance of policy and wishful thinking is not notability. Delete arguments are policy basedSpartaz Humbug! 09:02, 7 December 2014 (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.