Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Moore


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Carmel Moore

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:PORNBIO as the UK Adult Film and Television Awards are not 'a well-known and significant industry award'. In addition, fails WP:GNG. Finnegas (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO for starring in and winning an internationally recognised award for her work in an iconic feature 'Hug a Hoodie' that built on a speech made by British Prime Minister David Cameron on a theme that was of significant cultural importance in the UK. For further information see Anna Span Graemp (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence to suggest that UK Adult Film and Television Awards is 'internationally recognised award'. Moreover, you cannot claim that 'Hug a Hoodie' is iconic and  'of significant cultural importance in the UK' without producing reliable sources. Finnegas (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence to suggest that the UK Adult Film and Television Awards are not 'internationally recognised awards'. WP:PORNBIO 1. says "Has won a well-known and significant industry award." and deliberately does not specify any one or group of awards. However wikipedia has deemed the awards significant enough to maintain a dedicated page to them. The question of providing reliable sources is a matter for an article not a matter for a deletion discussion. I took the trouble to provide you with a suitable link to encourage you to read around your subject. Graemp (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Well-known and significant" has been well-established as a higher standard than Wikipedia notability. Just because an award meets the minimum WP standards for notability does not establish that it is well-known and significant -- indeed, the majority of Wikipedia subjects would fail the "well-known" test alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because the Award has an aricle does not automatically mean it is "well-known and significant industry award". For instance, the Eroticline Awards were deemed not to be "well-known and significant" at Articles for deletion/Renee Pornero in August 2013. Finnegas (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is important not to get side-tracked too much into other discussions, however, since you raised the issue of the Renee Pornero discussion, it should be addressed. You state that "the Eroticline Awards were deemed not to be well-known and significant" based upon the conclusion that Pornero was deleted. However, if one reads that discussion, the only person to specifically state that they believed the Eroticline Awards failed WP:PORNBIO was yourself and nowhere in the summation is this point directly referred to.Graemp (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion ought to focus mainly around the UKAFTA status in 2007, the year when Carmel Moore won Best Female Actress. To assess the significance of the UKAFTAs you first need to assess the significance of those awards to the UK adult film industry. Wikipedia only carries information on two sets of awards for this period, the UKAFTAs and the Erotic Awards. The latter awards to me don't seem to qualify as pornographic industry awards as they seem to cover a far more broader area of interest. So I would conclude that the UKAFTAs seem to have been not just the most significant industry award in the UK but the only industry award in the UK. Having assessed the significance of the UKAFTAs to the UK porn industry, the only thing left is to assess if there was a bona fida UK porn industry in 2007. Pornography in Europe section on the UK sources a 2006 article on the UK porn industry that estimated its worth at about £1 billion, which seems to suggest that in 2007 the UK porn industry did indeed exist. So in conclusion, we know from a wikipedia article that the UK porn industry was a bona fide porn industry and also from wikipedia articles that the UKAFTAs were apparently its main if not its only set of industry specific awards. We also know that wikipedia has maintained a page specifically on these awards for over five years. We also know that Carmel Moore won it's most significant award in 2007. So Carmel Moore clearly Passes WP:PORNBIO#1 and arguably #2 for starring in an iconic feature as mentioned above. Graemp (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject in question here passes PORNBIO as she has "won a well-known" (UK Adult Film and Television Awards) "and significant" (Best Female Actress) "industry award." As is documented on the UKAFTA's Wikipedia page, those awards were well-known within Great Britian, and it's been well-established here at AfD in the past that Best Actress awards meet the "significant" award standard. I'm not intimately's familiar with the movie (Hug a Hoodie) that Ms. Moore won her award for, but the movie appears to have been related to a speech given by David Cameron, when he "famously urged the nation to 'hug a hoodie'."
 * The old Renee Pornero AfD is irrelevant to this article here, and there was, in fact, no determination made at that AfD that "the Eroticline Awards were deemed not to be 'well-known and significant'". That AfD occurred before the PORNBIO standard was tightened late last year to remove award nominations entirely, and, quite frankly, I don't remember if Ms. Pornero even won any awards or was just nominated for a bunch of them. Again, not that it matters here, but the Erotic Awards are in fact, at least in part, a pornographic film award. Guy1890 (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It needs better references if it's to avoid deletion. I'm less certain on actual notability, without any proper references it's unfortunately an unsourced BLP and deletion is the only option, but I'd be surprised if there's not some good reliable sources out there, given the girl's background and history, I'm sure there's likely to be proper sources out there for someone to prove notability, if they want to do so. Nick (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Internet Adult Film Database is not a reliable source as it's a user generated database, and fails for the same reasons as references to IMDb and other similar sites. The lack of editorial oversight is the major issue with this source.
 * 2) Carmel's own website isn't independent, nor does it contain sufficient information to really be considered a reliable source, indeed it is questionable whether it's really her official site at all, but the claim that she's a pornographic actress is unlikely to be particularly controversial so it's not really being used to reference something in a particularly problematic way
 * 3) Private YouTube videos are very rarely if ever considered reliable sources because they can be updated and changed by the original creator and as with all user created work, not subject to editorial oversight.
 * 4) Iran Politics Club is a 404 and looking at the home page, I wouldn't say it's a particularly reliable source either but I'm happy for others to correct me if they know more about it.
 * 5) British Girls Adult Film Database is arguably not a reliable source given it's yet another user generated film database not subject to editorial oversight, but there's certainly an argument it's more reliable given it's not wide open to every user to go ahead and edit.
 * 6) IMDb is never a reliable source - fine as an external link, not as a source for claims made within it, as yet again it's a user generated film and TV database not subject to editorial oversight. There's also a lot of circular referencing going on between WP and IMDb, claims made on Wikipedia end up on IMDb and the content on IMDb is used to verify the claim on Wikipedia.
 * Nick's points need to be addressed.

Nick seems to assume that because a particular source invites/encourages editorially controlled user involvement it will by definition be less reliable while I believe that it makes the source more reliable. It seems to me that all the articles in wikipedia on those involved in the porn industry rely on sourcing IAFD and where relevant BGAFD. I believe this is because they are widely acknowledged as reliable sources. The logic of Nick's arguement therefore is that virtually all wikipedias articles on pornography should be deleted. As they say, Good luck with that.Graemp (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Nick is wrong, IAFD is a reliable source as it is user initiated in conjunction with having editorial oversight.
 * 2) Nick is right, Carmel's website is clearly not an Independent website but as Nick says, this is not a problem.
 * 3) Nick talks generally without addressing the specific interview in question, so his points are irrelevant. Then again, as far as this discussion is concerned, that source is largely irrelevant.
 * 4) Nick is probably right on this count but the source is irrelevant in relation to this discussion.
 * 5) Nick is wrong, BGAFD is a reliable source as it is user initiated in conjunction with having editorial oversight.
 * 6) Nick may be right for all I know, but even if he is, this point is very minor to this discussion.
 * "IMDb is never a reliable source"...sure it is...sometimes...especially for filmographies, which is all that the IMDb reference in question here is being used for in the article in question. There's nothing wrong with that at all. Guy1890 (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. First, there is absolutely zero evidence that "Hug a Hoodie" is an "iconic", "blockbuster", or "groundbreaking release - or even a notable one. Simply lifting a well-known phrase for a title does not confer stature of any kind on a film, video, song, book, or even a toaster. The claim is ridiculous. Second, the UKAFTA is not a "well-known and significant" award. It was a short-lived effort - a for-profit award ceremony which achieved very limited notoriety through publicity stunts like nominating mainstream performers for porn awards and announcing invitations to high-profile celebrities who invariably declined or ignored them. Award recipients are documented mainly, and rather badly, by message board posts at a user generated database site, and as one director involved with an award-garnering project commented recently, the event seemed "amateurish and desperate" and "if it wasn't for Wikipedia, there would be no proof that it ever even happened." The awards also had a reputation for giving awards to films/videos that had not yet been released -- and, in some cases, would never be released -- try to find any reliable evidence that the film for which one Jamie Brooks "won" her award actually existed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Award recipients are documented mainly, and rather badly, by message board posts at a user generated database site"...not on the UKAFTA Wikipedia page they are not. "The awards also had a reputation for giving awards to films/videos that had not yet been released"...so we're going to use "evidence" (forum postings) here at AfD that one would never even think of using in an actual article as a citation to try & prove something? Please, the "blokely.com" posting mostly reads like a disappointed porn producer's sour grapes. Guy1890 (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that the UKAFTAs only ran for three years I believe is irrelevant to their status. Things evolve and essentially the UKAFTAs evolved into the SHAFTAs. I don't think it helps to delve too much into what goes on behind the scenes at awards events as I'm sure there have been plenty of criticisms made against other porn industry awards and even mainstream awards. That said, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tries to undermine the UKAFTAs by saying they were "announcing invitations to high-profile celebrities who invariably declined" while ignoring information in his own source which reveals, in the case of Brad Pitt, when they do. I think that comments made on personal blogs and open forums lack credibility when gathering evidence and this includes all those given in evidence by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz such as comments from one individual who was disappointed not to recieve an award. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is happy to quote from a blog that "if it wasn't for Wikipedia, there would be no proof that it ever even happened." yet if we examine the article which is the subject of this discussion, the evidence actually comes from a reputable source, the British Girls Adult Film Database, which is directly linked in the article. So on this point Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and his source are indisputably wrong. Graemp (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with Nick and Hullalloo Wolfowitz, no evidence of her meeting WP:GNG or the new criteria of WP:PORNBIO. The "major" award mentioned, UKAFTA doesn't seem of great significance. Secret account 01:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly the central issue to this discussion is interpreting PORNBIO#1 "well-known and significant". A number of users including Secret have stated that they believe the UKAFTAs should not be regarded as "well-known and significant" whilst not presenting any information to back up their conclusion. Only one user who reached this conclusion has given any sort of assessment of the UKAFTAs but none of the points he/she made actually addressed the issue of "well-known and significant" apart from one point that was immediately dis-proved by two other users. On the other hand, I provided an assessment of how the UKAFTAs should be regarded as "well-known and significant" yet none of those who disagree have even tried to counter that assessment. Graemp (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Utter rubbish. Your argument is mostly that the award meets the "well-known and significant" standard simply because it is (en)Wikipedia-notable. That's invalid on its face. And, in this specific context, it was rejected by consensus and removed from PORNBIO several years ago, in conjunction with a similar tightening of ANYBIO. As to the nonsense you posted about Brad Pitt attending one of their award ceremonies, the source you allude to actually says "So anyone who tells you that Snoop Dog, Brad Pitt and Frank from Shameless blessed the UK porn industry with their awesome presence at the UKAFTAs in 2007 is either very gullible or just lying".
 * "And, in this specific context, it was rejected by consensus and removed from PORNBIO several years ago"...where's the evidence for that? During the recent discussions around tightening the PORNBIO standard, it was never mentioned at all that a "well-known" adult "industry award" had to rise to the standard that you are implying here. The fact remains that the UKAFTA's were well-known awards within Great Britian, period. Guy1890 (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong Anon - my argument above sourced Pornography in Europe and its sources which are helpful for anyone with an open mind. As regards Brad Pitt, the nonsense is not my nonsense but that of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who sourced it. The source you quote is contradictory because it also says "in 2007 .... Brad Pitt was more interested in pulling porn stars" which helps make the whole source unreliable in my view. Graemp (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't alter quoted material deceptively, Graemp. The cited source says that the UKAFTA organizers hired six celebrity look-a-likes to hang around the event and that "Brad Pitt" was more interested in pulling porn stars than actually behaving like Brad Pitt, plain as day referring to the hired lookalike's behavior at the event rather than the absent actor's. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 12:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   14:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Has won a UK Adult Film and Television Award for Best Female Actress, which is a well-known and significant industry award and she therefore passes WP:PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet the notability requirements that apply to this type of actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This commenter either doesn't know of WP:PORNBIO#1 or doesn't think that a 2007 sole industry specific award for a £1 billion industry should count. (see Pornography in Europe mentioned above.) The AfD stats above include a total of 5 users who have voted delete, including the aforementioned Johnpacklambert. Three of these, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Jeffrd10 and Finnegas have a track record of voting to delete any article in this category seemingly regardless of the merits of a specific case. Only one of these five Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has attempted to question the status of the UKAFTAs and only by drawing on a source of dubious authority. It seems unlikely that any form of consensus will be reached in this discussion about the UKAFTAs, when you consider the track record of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Finnegas. However, no one has disputed the fact that in 2007, they were the only UK awards and that the industry in the UK generated £1 billion out of a worldwide total of £20 billion. Graemp (talk) 14:44, 20 February 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.