Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brynn Tyler


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 
 * 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. Most of the discussion centered around the correct use and interpretation of WP:PORNBIO, rough consensus is that article meets that bar. j⚛e deckertalk 02:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Brynn Tyler

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I noticed the following things in this article:
 * 1) This is a BLP and requires per the WMF, Jimbo and WP:BLP the highest levels of fact checking. After all Wikipedia's reputation is always being tested on how accurately it has assessed its subjects worthiness for inclusion and and how well the community has checked the fact of this article.
 * 2) Both the title and the first sentence are misleading. - and would be easier to delete than to correct. The most basic fact in this article is under dispute. Is this article about Brynn Tyler ? Is it an article about Londyn Allison? Is it an article about some one else? Without reference to a real person none of this article can be reasonable WP:V Consider Mark Twain or Lewis Carrol. Is Brynn Tyler a person actually born on November 14, 1987 in Texas. Clearly not - Brynn Tyler is a fiction which was born years later by Wicked Pictures or another similar company whose interests are being promoted by this article WP:COI. Isn't the existence of multiple aliases further evidence that other companies later decided that Brynn Tyler is not a good name for this subject? All in all it is clear that this the title is misleading and a lie of omission. How can Wikipedia editors condone this article notable if they cannot possibly verify or correct the inaccurate statement drawn fully from WP:OR. If it is not 100% correct - it has no place in a WP:BLP The second sentence is no better:
 * 3) "She debuted in 2007 and since then has appeared in about 90 movies." - this again is unfit for inclusion in any serious encyclopedia since it is WP:SYNTH. Since when do we publish assessment. This is a serious statement which boldly claims that someone has engaged in about 90 sexual encounters. I am certain that all our editors would be shocked if they were described by Britannica as having been in about 3 porno movies - especially if they had been in none. Further more it is contradicted by the info box which states exactly 87. Secondly these are not movies which debut in a Cinema as the article and its sourced would like to claim  but pornographic videos, dvd or just internet based media. The article is clearly fails WP:NPOV in this regard. Finlay this material is plagiarised from IAFD in contravention with their usage policies. And in are still think that 87 == 90 consider that more reputable databases list 60. No database actually makes such bold claims this number is subject to change and cannot possibly be sourced in an adequately way it is just WP:SYNTH. So this too should be deleted immediately according to WP:BLP.
 * 4) The rest of the article is promotional links and a list of awards added to create an illusion of notability.


 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.


 * Keep - Subject clearly passes both WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO.  She has been nominated for several awards in her field.  The references are germane to that field and are independent of the subject.  The subject is clearly a pornographic actress, so there is no problem with saying that they've been in 1, 3, or 90 pornographic films.  With all the fuss that  has been raising lately over articles about porn stars, I'm thinking that they have a WP:POINT that they are trying to promote.  I suppose that next they'll want to raise similar concerns over Lady Gaga, Cher, and John Wayne due to their names.
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas |(talk) 18:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So basicaly if it is a PORNBIO it does not have to abide by WP:V WP:OR WP:SYNTH or WP:BLP. in this case anything goes ? BO &#124; Talk 18:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This was posted 18 minutes after you announced that you've "retired". Perhaps you should make up your mind.  Ubelowme (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed if I cannot get a fair hearing my retierment will be effective immediatly - it is this important.! BO &#124; Talk 19:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't say that. I also believe it satisfies WP:BLP, WP:V, and every other guideline and policy we have.  Saying someone who works in porn has been in a porn movie does not violate BLP.  It's all verifiable.  It's not SYNTH or OR since we have RS's for the info.  Dismas |(talk) 19:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying some one has appeared in 90 films based on a count of the database is WP:SYNTH. The DB is accurate in listing known movies but it does not claim this is the actual number. So this is OR and Synth. I spent hours research this. You decided within five minutes. BO &#124; Talk 19:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So maybe I read faster than you do. It actually takes less than five minutes for me to pull up the IAFD listing as see right at the top that it says 111 titles.  What's your point?  Dismas |(talk) 03:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I already explined this above. For one other databases say IMDB give differnt numbers. IAFD is not a particulary accurate source to refrence for this information - it asks for corrections on every pages. So it cannot be claimed to WP:RS. Tommorow the number could go up or down will you update it every time - I don't think so? It also considers web based only as movies. Thus stating that these are movies is an deceives the general public that these are on par with the number of movies that Nicolas Cage or Brad Pit has appeared in. Finaly it is not fact. Now the reason this is OR and Synth is that you have selected one of many unreliable sources which do not agree for this information and concluded that this is the correct one. THis is a conclusion. Unless there is a definitive research done on this outside WP then this WP:Fact must be excluded - since this is still a BLP. BO &#124; Talk 07:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet another problem with using IAFD is that it has published usage policy and this article violates it. BO &#124; Talk 07:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I agree that this individual meets WP:PORNBIO and, yes, I agree that the nominator seems to have some kind of WP:POINT about biographies of porn stars. There is a place for that discussion and it's not with relation to a specific article. Wikipedia is not censored; this material is perfectly appropriate to this encyclopedia. Ubelowme (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably the nominator's essay Pornography considered harmful could be enlightening about that. Cavarrone (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: now the essay has been deleted upon request of the same creator.Cavarrone (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the editor refuses to correct the mistakes in the article then AfD is the choice of last resort. I am sorry that it has come to this. But according to protocol I could not remove the inaccuracies without a broader consensus. While I respect that you prefer to include this article - it cannot stay in its current form. Cavarrone knows my user page better then me and has been quoting my talk page nonstop for 48 hours - but he has refused to correct any of the defincenices in this article. Please let me know if I should ask Jimbo himself to intereceed ??? BO &#124; Talk 19:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination, just a part of a massive disruption you can see reported at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive756. Cavarrone (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a good faith nomination grounded in policy and indeed a direct follow up of the CSD attempt made earlier this week - mentioned in the above link. However the admin who removed the CSD advised that an AfD is the correct venue for this deletion request. Also the incident has not ruled that I have been disruptive. I have only made a single AfD on this subject this week and I doubt you have even bothered to read it. If you bother you will learn something about how badly your bios are written. And yes I have declared my biases to keep my action transparent and avoid COI.BO &#124; Talk 19:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Really... everyone could read in the above linked discussion the comments about your behaviour, not only related to this "incident". All your five speedy deletion requests were declined. All your overtaggings were reverted as pointy and retaliatory (see relevant edit summaries). According to your talk page (that you requested for deletion and now blanked - have you something to hide? ) I see your rollback priviledges were removed. I see you were warned about a cool-down block related to the incident and then about a possible future block for disruptiveness related to your improper use of automatic tools. But everything is ok, keep it up! Cavarrone (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blanked my Talk Page due to extensive grierefing.


 * Delete No sources detail this individual in the depth required for an article. Nominations for porn-awards do not pass the extremely low bar of WP:PORNBIO. Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. When I accessed WP:PORNBIO a moment ago, it said "has been nominated for such an award several times".  Are we looking at two different documents?  Ubelowme (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - There's a movement afoot to take that part of the requirements out of PORNBIO. Some editors feel it's too much to allow those who have just been nominated for several years.  Dismas |(talk) 19:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes the new tightened version of WP:PORNBIO that gained widespread consensus. Epbr123 (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep meets the requirements of the lastest version of PORNBIO, as set by consensus. We're always welcome to revist this article after other portions of PORNBIO are removed through a consensus, and then judge notability per WP:ANYBIO's instructions toward well-known awards... and we will argue then whether or not a film award notable to its genre has any merit.  23:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy close of bad faith nomination per the AN/I discussion mentioned above. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you consider this a bad faith nomination? BO &#124; Talk 00:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award is not an industry award - it is a fan award.

Comment: CAVR is an award given by a website. This is not an industry award either BO &#124; Talk 00:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:POINT. DarkAudit (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination is based on a failed understanding of what the policies mean and how they are applied. Clearly meets the inclusion criteria. QU TalkQu 09:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Individual appears to pass WP:PORNBIO. Fine piece of Wikilawyering, though.  I mean that in a positive light. Roodog2k (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least for now. The nominator's concerns about sourcing and BLP issues are certainly sound, but the current consensus has been that a stub article like this which recites an adequate set of well-known/significant awards/nominations is not so inadequate as to result in deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2012 (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.
 * 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.