Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Iron (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.  MBisanz  talk 12:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Brandon Iron
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A BLP that lacks reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. A WP:PORNBIO pass is questionable, as the XRCO Award for "Unsung Swordsman" is a lower tier award, given that the "swordsman" is unsung.

The AfD in June 2015 2016 closed as "keep" (which was a bit surprising to me) on the strength of the argument for the two Swordsman awards. The consensus at adult entertainment AfDs seems to have shifted since then, and much more scrutiny is given to sources (or lack thereof) vs a technical SNG pass. The AfD was not well attended, so perhaps a new discussion is warranted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP as an article about a living person with no reliable sources from publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete lack of coverage in reliable sources means GNG is not passed. WP:GNG overrides the SNG which is also questionable in this case. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: I just looked at the first AfD (via the above link) and that AfD appears to have been just a few months ago (in 2016), NOT 2015 as the nominator stated; so I don’t know what “consensus at adult entertainment AfD could have shifted” in a few months.  The first AfD was opened on 7 June 2016, closed on 15 June 2016 with all 3 new editors voting (in a 7 day period) "Keep."  All 3 editors gave very good reasons for their "Keep" vote.  These reasons still seem valid to me.  There were no “Delete" votes for the first AfD (other than the nominator, Atlantic306).  One of the editors of this second AfD (Atlantic306) voting for a “Delete" is the nominator in the first AfD.  The other editor (86.17.222.157) voting for a Delete in this second AfD added some negative comments in the first AfD, but did not vote.  The nominator of this second AfD states that "the first AfD was not well attended so perhaps a new discussion is warranted," but I would think that 3 editors voting (within a 7 day period; and all voting "Keep") would be considered "well attended."  The 3 editors that voted "Keep" in the first AfD were as follows: User:Rebecca1990, User:Wikiuser20102011 and User:Guy1890.    User: Zootsuit1941    Zootsuit1941 (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I mistyped. I nominated this article with the knowledge that the prior AfD was 6 moths ago. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - NOTE: I've again recently edited the article under consideration here. The subject of this article has "won a well-known and significant industry award", namely the XRCO Award for "Unsung Swordsman" twice.
 * Sending an article to AfD less than 6 months after it's been Kept at a very recent AfD is at least mildly disruptive and likely indicative that the subject here just isn't liked by the nominator of this AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly normal, and not at all disruptive, for the suitability of a topic for Wikipedia to be reassessed after such a time, especially when the previous discussion was far from unanimous, and the nominator gave policy-based reasons for deletion without giving any indication of any like or dislike. You may disagree with those reasons, but you shouldn't try to read the nominator's mind and characterise them as "just isn't liked". And surely the word "unsung" in the name of this award equates pretty well to "unnotable" in Wikipedia-speak, because both indicate a lack of coverage in reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Porn is one of those subject areas where we have a tremendous problem with the active editors trying to create their own special exemptions from having to actually get the topics over WP:GNG — such as an excessive reliance on XBIZ (a user-generated industry PR trade blog) in lieu of actual reliable sourcing, or the notion that even though any other award in any other field of endeavour has to be sourced to media coverage about that award before winning or being nominated for it counts as a notability claim, porn should somehow get a special dispensation to use the award's own self-published website about itself as the source. (Never mind that the existence of reliable media coverage about an award is how we determine whether that award is notable enough to count as a notability claim — in the isolated standalone case of porn, we're supposed to accept that something is a notable award just because somebody asserts that it is, regardless of its sourceability or lack thereof.) I want to stress that I'm no prude — I'm as much an aficionado of porn as the next horny single guy — but at the Wikipedia level, porn does not get to make up its own special subject-specific exemptions from having to follow the same content rules as any other subject area. SNGs do not create exemptions from having to pass GNG on the sourcing, but serve merely to clarify the types of things that are accepted as notability claims — but the claim does still have to be sourceable to a GNG-passing volume of reliable source coverage before the SNG is actually passed, and SNGs do not confer exemptions from RSability just because passage of an SNG has been claimed. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - XBIZ is not "a user-generated industry PR trade blog"...it is merely an adult film industry trade magazine that is certainly not "user-generated" by any means. The idea that any awarding organization cannot be used as a reliable source for who won (or was nominated for) one of its awards is an argument that has been dismissed out of hand here at AfD for many years now. The specific award ceremony in question here (the XRCO Awards) and its winners have been covered in the past by the likes of the LA Times and several books. Guy1890 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever said that an award's own self-published website about itself is untrustworthy for verification of who won its own awards. But what an award's own self-published website about itself cannot do is constitute evidence in and of itself that the award is notable enough to make the fact of winning it a valid notability claim in an article about a person. The latter most certainly does depend on the extent to which reliable sources which are independent of the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself do or don't treat the winning of that award as news — the extent to which an award makes its winners wikinotable because they won it is a factor of the extent to which the media do or don't devote their time and resources to creating news content about "so-and-so wins XBIZ award".
 * By comparison, winning an Academy Award constitutes notability for a film industry worker because the media covers the Academy Awards as news, and winning a Giller Prize constitutes notability for a writer because the media covers the Gillers as news — yet lots of other film or literary awards (e.g. "Star Wars Fan Film Awards") also exist which don't get media coverage, and thus don't count as notability claims for their winners just because the award organization issued a press release or named the winners on its own website. If "the award is verifiable on the granting organization's own website" were all it took to hand an award "makes its winners encyclopedic" status, we would have to start keeping articles about winners of local "battle of the bands" competitions and high school poetry contests — the extent to which media treat the winning of that award as news is what defines the difference between an award that is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it and an award that is not.
 * What the award's own website about itself is good for is verifying things in case of conflict — for example, if two different sources are in conflict about which year a person won their award, then the award's own website is the ideal place to look for verification of which source was right and which source was wrong. But the award cannot self-publish itself into being notable enough to make its winners eligible for articles on the basis of having won it, if the winners can't actually be RSed over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the citations for one of the relevant award wins in this case here is cited from XBIZ (not from the awarding organization itself - XRCO), which is a reliable source that is both independent of the awarding organization and of the subject of this Wikipedia article here. The notability standard primarily in question here is PORNBIO ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award."), which has been intentionally modeled off of the ANYBIO standard ("has received a well-known and significant award or honor"). The standard here is basically whether or not the awarding organization itself is "well-known" within the adult film industry (XRCO certainly is) and whether or not the specific award category is "significant" (or basically a major award, which is also true in this case). The "Star Wars Fan Film Awards", local "battle of the bands" competitions, and high school poetry contests are obviously not well-known and significant awards. Also, arguments that basically boil down to that something just isn't encyclopedic, which is unfortunately what many anti-porn arguments basically boil down to in the end, aren't to be given any weight here at AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The standard for whether an award win passes WP:ANYBIO is whether the person got over WP:GNG by garnering media coverage for the award win or not — "won an award" does not create or confer an exemption from having to source the winner over GNG. Like any other SNG, ANYBIO cannot be passed just by asserting that it's passed — it is passed only when reliable source coverage can be shown to properly support its passage. And while you're right that the Star Wards Fan Film Awards, local battle of the bands competitions and high school poetry contests are not well-known or significant awards, the lack of a GNG-passing volume of media coverage for those awards is what makes them not well-known or significant. We don't apply personal opinions to determine what's a significant award and what isn't — we measure the media coverage that does or doesn't exist about the award and its winners. If the award gets a GNG-passing volume of media coverage, then it's a significant and notability-conferring award regardless of whether any individual editor personally cares about it or not — and if it doesn't get a GNG-passing volume of coverage, then it's not a significant or notability-conferring award no matter how desperate an editor may be to create new GNG-dodging inclusion criteria in his pet subject area. Anybody can come along and assert that any award, even the battle of the bands competition or the Star Wars Fan Film, is "significant" enough to merit an ANYBIO pass — the depth of media coverage that does or doesn't exist about the award is how we determine whether that assertion is right or wrong. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "the lack of a GNG-passing volume of media coverage for those awards is what makes them not well-known or significant"...no, that's what makes those awards non-notable. There's been a longstanding difference at AfD between a notable award (or award ceremony - one that simply might have a Wikipedia article written about it) and whether or not those awards are "well-known and significant", which is a higher standard than just being notable. I'm sorry, but these are longstanding guidelines that shouldn't have to be explained to anyone whose spent any significant amount of time at AfD in this (or really any other) subject area. "Anybody can come along and assert that any award, even the battle of the bands competition or the Star Wars Fan Film, is 'significant' enough to merit an ANYBIO pass"...no, they really can't. AfDs like this run on consensus, and one is never going to get consensus for those kind of claims. Guy1890 (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, anybody most certainly can come along and simply assert that any award in existence is "significant" enough to merit an ANYBIO pass — for someone who staked so much of this comment on what should or shouldn't have to be "explained to anyone who's spent any significant amount of time at AFD", you sure don't seem all that aware that AFD routinely sees "votes" on the order of "Keep because he won the [Star Wars Fan Film Award/North Palookaville Battle of the Bands/Jackson Collegiate High School Poetry Contest/Employee of the Month at Arby's] and therefore passes ANYBIO". It is an argument that can be attempted for any award that exists at all, and actually has been tried for many more awards than we actually accept as "notability because award" passes — whether we take the claim seriously or not is determined by whether or not reliable sources can be shown which prove that the award is really as significant and noteworthy as the claimant asserts that it is. And, conversely, it is entirely possible for someone else to argue that even a highly notable award like the Giller Prize or the Prix Goncourt is not a well-known or significant award because they've never personally heard of it before — yes, it's a stupid and ethnocentric argument, but it's one that can be, and actually has been, seen in real AFD discussions too. So in both cases, the determining factor is not the mere assertion of whether an award is "well-known and significant" or not — it's "can the depth of reliable source coverage be located to demonstrate how well-known and significant the award really is or isn't?" Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete.Subject fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Whether an award is sufficiently well-known and significant to indicate presumptive notability depends both on the awarding organization and the award category. The standard is a proxy for whether award recipients are likely to have generated enough independent reliable coverage to satisfy GNG requirements. An award as an "unsung" performer is premised on the idea that the subject has been inadequately covered, a point reinforced in the case by the absence of reliable sourcing. A Gbooks search turns up only one passing mention; a GNews search turns up only an isolated quote (aside from a castlist or three). Even if the award were enough to technically pass the SNG, that would be overridden by the lack of the independent reliable sourcing needed to sustain a BLP. And most XBIZ coverage, whatever the subject, is client-generated, not independent; XBIZ is a component of a PR business, AdNet Media, and extensively publishes/republishes its client's press releases/PR copy, sometimes with minor touchups. There is some independent journalism in its magazine, but not much, and it is difficult to identify that relatively small share of its output. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete subject fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 10 December 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.