Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Addams (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 delete. SoWhy 10:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Ava Addams
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No notable contributions to the genre. Being 94th on a list of adult actresses is an insufficient claim of significance.

The award category listed NightMoves Awards - Best Cougar/MILF Performer (Editor’s Choice) - is not significant. The rest are nominations. The last AfD closed as "no consensus" in 2016, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 07:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 07:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO#1 because of the NightMoves Awards - Best Cougar/MILF Performer (Editor’s Choice) and the amount of nominations as well Abote2 (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well-established consensus holds both that NightMoves awards fail the "well-known/significant" standard of PORNBIO, and that MILF-type award categories also fail the same standard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete we lack the required coverage in reliable sources to pass the general notability guidelines. This is the first judgement, and should be the one we look at. The pornographic performers biography guidelines have lead to over coverage of those who do this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per above - Wasn't notable in the first AFD and 4 AFDs later nothing's changed, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per this, for being 19th most popular pornstar of the year 2016. In my opinion, it also passes the first half of WP:PORNBIO#2. Also per WP:COMMONSENSE. A harmless article. Not result of paid editing, nor for promotional purposes. In last 30 days. the article got 78,684 page views; with a daily average of 2,538 views. In one year it got 1,014,702 views; with monthly average of 84,559. People are certainly interested in this article, and they are reading it too. The article doesnt have any unsourced content, nor any promotional content. — usernamekiran (talk)  11:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That looks to me like the kind of sense that might be common to porn-obsessed adolescent boys, but not to the wider population. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, please log in. This IP is used from the beginning to edits in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and related pages, we clearly see that it's a sockpuppet. Please, once again - do not log out and use your account. Subtropical -man  (talk / en-2 ) 18:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please either withdraw that allegation or take it to WP:SPI. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, SPI is not so easy, however, if you start voting... the situation changes and falls under SPI. Subtropical -man  (talk / en-2 ) 19:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that won't do. If you are not prepared to give any evidence of sockpuppetry at WP:SPI then you should withdraw the allegation. I haven't said "keep" or "delete" in this discussion, but I have in plenty of other discussions, so the "if you start voting" condition is fulfilled. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * do you voluntarily agree to check if you are a sock-puppet?  Subtropical -man  (talk / en-2 ) 20:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What you need to start a sockpuppet investigation is evidence, not my agreement. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets of the PORNBIO & GNG. Subtropical -man  (talk / en-2 ) 17:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no independent reliable sources, as opposed to unreliable promotional industry sources, presented either in the article or in this discussion, and I can find none. The award and the nominations are for niche categories, and such awards only exist for promotional purposes. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I've said before, fails even the lax standards of WP:PORNBIO, since scene nominations are excluded by the guideline text and "MILF" category nominations have been repeatedly rejected by prior AFD and DRV determinations as falling below the well-known/significant standard. Fails the GNG, no nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits, while the pop-culture namedrops are trivial, not the necessary substantive coverage. Just another porn performer BLP without reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Usernamekiran Meets WP:NACTOR#2. RS coverage is very basic, but enough.Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * On what evidence do you base the claim that Addams meets WP:NACTOR#2? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * delete derisory keep arguments and BLPs deserve substantial sourcing that is absent here. Spartaz Humbug! 13:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet the GNG or PORNBIO. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2018 (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.