Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandy Talore (3rd 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. No evidence of notability, via significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, has been presented during this discussion. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Brandy Talore
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A BLP that lacks reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found; sources used in the article are interviews, industry publicity materials, and directory listings. The award listed is not significant and well known, thus failing WP:PORNBIO.

The most recent AfD (2015) closed as no consensus; I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am going to assume that subject passes WP:PORNBIO having won a FAME Award, but as I'm an ignorant virgin in this subsection of WP:NBIO, do ping me, if you believe I am wrong. — Sam Sailor 19:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * correct; this is a fan-based award, and thus falls too far short of meeting PORNBIO. From the linked article:
 * The Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Awards (or F.A.M.E. Awards) were created in 2006 by Genesis, Adam & Eve, WantedList, Playboy Radio and AVN as a means for the general public to vote for their favorite adult film stars, directors, movies, and companies.  The Awards were presented during the Erotica LA show at the Los Angeles Convention Center.


 * K.e.coffman (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Do we have precedent on that or is it opinion? — Sam Sailor 03:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fan-based awards are by their nature not "significant". Here's a prior AfD on a subject with scene-related and fan-based awards that closed as "delete": Articles for deletion/Jessica Darlin (2nd nomination). Hope this helps. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I respect if your opinion is that Fan-based awards are by their nature not "significant", but in both previous AFD nominations of this article, as well as multiple others, winning the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award has been used as an argument for "keep" in discussions that closed as "keep". The discussion Articles for deletion/Jessica Darlin (2nd nomination) you link to does not mention the FAME Award. It does have a very thoughtful comment by John Pack Lambert. — Sam Sailor 04:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 04:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete subject does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - NOTE: I have recently edited the article under consideration here. The subject here has won "a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (which has been copmared in the past to the People's Choice Awards) "Favorite Female Rookie Starlet", which is similar to other well-known, major adult film award categories like the AVN Award for Best New Starlet & the XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet. The fact that the award winners tied that year is pretty much meaningless, and, despite repeated assertions by those that don't like this genre of adult film awards, there is no prohibition on "fan-based awards" in PORNBIO. Guy1890 (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The comparison to the "People's Choice" awards is spurious; the awardgivers made the comparison on a promotional page, and even though that may have been picked up on a few unreliable pages, it cannot be an indication of significance, or even of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - meet of WP:PORNBIO #1. Subtropical -man  (talk / en-2 ) 17:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There don't seem to be any new issues from the previous AfD.  Passes PORNBIO#1.  210 adult films is a strong indicator of notability all by itself.  Article has 25 inline citations.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no serious argument that the subject passes the GNG: all of the substantive sources in the article are promotional pages and promotional interviews given to retailer-vendor associated sites with no reputation whatever for factchecking and accuracy. Award reports and announcements sourced to the awardgiver are not independent and do not count towards notability. This leaves only the single FAME Award, unsupported by other coverage. FAME Awards apparently fail the "well-known and significant" standard of PORNBIO; even the article on the award itself has no genuinely independent sourcing. The FAME award was a short-lived, astroturfed ceremony ceremony without a legitimate underlying awardgiver. AVN, its principal sponsor, has been trying for quite a few years to create a fan-award-analogue to its own AVN Awards. in hopes of generating revenue from the awards ceremony itself and a possible cable TV broadcast. But its efforts in this line have failed (aside from this award, the "Sex Awards" have come and gone in even fewer years, while the "AVN Fan Awards" have failed once and been "rebooted".) Without any independent coverage, the FAME Award cannot be said to be "well-known" or "significant"; even if the award were somehow seen as a technical pass of PORNBIO, that would clearly be outweighed by the failure to even approach meeting GNG standards. The number of inline citations is irrelevant, since the sources they cite are neither independent nor reliable. The number of videos a subject has appeared in has long been deprecated as an indicator of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo).  Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the number of career films, here is the link you gave me before. The title of the section was "Invalid criteria".  The top of the page states "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability criteria." and "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion."  The words "notability criteria" are wikilinked to Category:Wikipedia_notability_criterias.  According to Wiktionary, the word "criterias" is "non-standard" and "proscribed".  So first of all I don't think we should put much weight on deprecated "criterias", much less from a disputed guideline.  For the rest, I repost the statement I made before."Thanks for providing the link, because it allows looking at the quality of the argument. 'Number of films (e.g., 'any actor with X films is notable'). Pornographic films can be made in a few days, thus performers can appear in dozens of films per year.'  This is an argument based on production of films, rather than what Wikipedia cares about, which is attention given to the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)"
 * Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 25 inline citations shows that there is reliable material available to satisfy WP:DEL9 (BLP). Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That argument is, frankly, ridiculous on its face. The number of citations is wholly unrelated to their reliability and independence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Translation, what I've said is solid. Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment on translation, I do not think that word (reliable) means what you think it means. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - The idea that one can't confirm that a person has won an award by using a citation from the award giver's website is a laughable line of commentary that's unfortunately been used and dismissed again & again at AfD...mostly by those that don't like this genre of adult film awards. There's also no evidence at all that the "FAME Awards apparently fail the 'well-known and significant' standard of PORNBIO". Guy1890 (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man argument. No one has argued that the FAME Award is unverifiable. The argument is that citation/sourcing of an award to the award(giver) website is not independent, and is therefore mot evidence of notability (and, for that matter, evidence of being well-known or significant). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with using an awarding organization's website as a citation for who won which award, period end of story. Guy1890 (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And no one said there was, which is why there was no point to your bringing it up. But if an award in principally reported on the awardgiver's site, or on sites associated with the awardgiver, it's very, very hard to make a case that the award is well-known or significant. Exclamation point. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's sheer & utter nonsense...what you continually try to do at AfD with just about every, single, solitary adult film award organization is to imply that absolutely none of them are "well-known and significant industry awards", but that's neither new nor relevant here. These tired, old arguments have been previously made & rejected by the community as it relates to this specific award organization in question here. Guy1890 (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Guy, that you have to resort to an uncivil personal attack underscores the bankruptcy of your argument. You are plainly wrong. The AFD you cite determined that the FAME award was notable. Being notable is a far lower standard than the "well-known and significant" requirement in the governing SNG. The argument that winning a "notable" award is sufficient to meet the PORNBIO SNG (or, for that matter, ANYBIO) has been rejected over and over and over and over. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Nom's comment -- re "Reply to the usual hand-waving, bloviating nonsense", please see WP:No personal attacks.
 * Additionally, most of the keep votes argue that the award was significant and thus the PORNBIO is met. That it was indeed significant is a matter of some debate. However, the award alone, per outcomes of recent AfDs, have not been sufficient justification to keep the article. Please see: Deletion_review/Log/2016_October_9, where the matter was reviewed and the article subsequently deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete fails GNG NOONE argues differently, a disputed and extremely tenuous technical pornbio pass is not the free pass it was in the past. Recent consensus is that porn blps have the same requirement for proper sources as other blps. This clearly fails that. 09:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Spartaz Humbug! 09:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above - Has won a notable and signicient award, Meets PORNBIO as well as GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - The discussions over the deleted Vanessa Veracruz article obviously do not apply to this situation here, since the award there (the XBIZ "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" Award) was a relatively new & likely minor niche award category at the XBIZ Awards. Guy1890 (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The award in question was: "* 2006 F.A.M.E. Award winner – Favorite Female Rookie Starlet (tied with Alektra Blue)". It's even less significant than an XBIZ award. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We've already basically heard your own personal opinion on the award that's relevant to this AfD (which is obviously different than the award in question in the Vanessa Veracruz discussions)...it's the same no matter which adult industry award is in play in any AfD related to this genre. Guy1890 (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. The FAME award is certainly reliably sourced, but I don't believe it confers notability. The other sources currently in the article are worthless IMO (interviews, IAFD listing), and I guess nobody here claims otherwise, either. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bishonen. Montanabw (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2017 (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.