Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Vespoli


 * 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. Her performing career fails WP:PORNBIO, while her directing career fails WP:CREATIVE. Also, please write in English. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Dana Vespoli

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no other assertion of or evidence supporting notability. Claimed award from nn magazine fails the "well-known"/"significant" standard. Prod removed with suggestion subject may meet WP:CREATIVE, but I don't think a superlative in a single nn trade magazine comes close to meeting that standard. No reliably sourced biogrsphical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - In 2007 Director of the Year at the Adam Film World Guide Awards--Johnsmith877 (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - A directing award should not be analysed under WP:PORNBIO, which applies performance criterias, but under WP:CREATIVE. She satisfies criteria 1 for me with her award. Just because Adam Film World does not have an article on Wikipedia does not mean that it is non-notable. They are a reputable pornography reviewer since the 70s, the oldest in America. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, or merge to list. Adam Film World has at least some notability.  Ohio University Telecommunications professor Joseph W. Slade's Pornography and sexual representation: a reference guide says in part "Extremely valuable are the reports, reviews, and gossip of Adam Film World and Adult Video Guide, the oldest American monthly devoted to explicit cinema and generally more reliable than similar magazines, though the information on actors and actresses should be approached with caution."  How far that one opinion, with its qualified way of phrasing it, goes regarding AFW's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" I couldn't say, nor do I know for sure what kind of notability the award might have, but it doesn't appear to have much.  Vespoli does not appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per the GNG, nor does she appear to have "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" per BASIC. There is only one hit on Google Books for her that's not one of those odd Wikipedia books, a snippet revealing a passing mention in a Polish publication of some kind.  There's only one hit on Google News Archive, a website that routinely reviews adult DVDs, in this case a Hustler DVD in which she appeared.  A pretty clear case of why interpreting PORNBIO or CREATIVE out of context gives a bad indication of notability, and why interpreting those out of context to mean that the subject MUST have an article rather than an indication that they (still taken out of context) "are generally notable if they meet [it]" and that "meeting [it] does not guarantee that a subject should be included" (emphasis in original). If the awards are notable enough, and there are reliable sources for them, then Vespoli is more appropriately included as an entry on a list of those awards, than warranting an article herself. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete: no RS evidence of notability; alternatively merge to list, per Шизомби. -- JN 466  02:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable porn bio. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Нет Шизомби вы не правы,у неё есть одна номинация и ,как минимум одна награда,что подтверждается ссылками AVN.Причём награда за "режиссуру".--Johnsmith877 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnsmith877, while PORNBIO does include "Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award." and "Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years," meeting one or both of those does not give the article an automatic pass. That guideline states "People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards.  Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."  Further, she fails to meet the WP:BASIC criteria of that guideline, and she fails to meet the general notability guideline WP:GNG.  PORNBIO is pretty questionable, and it is questionable how well-known the various AVN and AFG awards really are.  With no significant coverage of her, with the degree of reliability of the  sources being questionable, there's no reason to have an article on her.  Do AVN or XBIZ or AFG have a high reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? BLP requires being more particular about the quality of sources, and it's not clear to what extent they'd be reliable even for deceased people.  A case could possibly be made for a list of AVN Best New Starlet Award winners and nominees.  However, I don't think there's an especially strong case for that, given that it's unlikely there are many third-party sources about that, and likewise few if any sources that have that as their subject. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again trying to apply PORNBIO to her directing award is wrong. CREATIVE applies to directors and only requires that she is regarded as important by her peers. Further, the reliability of AFG is irrelevant in determining whether it is a notable reviewer/award giver. After all, the National Enquirer is not reliable yet it is notable. XBIZ and AVN, the two main trade journals for the pornography industry. One of the signs that they are considered reliable is because mainstream reliable sources regularly cite them when discussing the pornography industry. WP:USEBYOTHERS  On that basis she has coverage by reliable sources and satisfies BASIC for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. As Morbidthoughts's comments accurately indicate, an essential question here is whether Vespoli is notable as a porn director; her performing career clearly falls below the notability standard. Despite what was originally written in the article, and repeated here, she did not win a "Director Of The Year" award, but was named "Directrix Of The Year" -- a sort of consolation price, not representing overall achievement (AFG gives a "Best Director" award for that). None of Vespoli's directing projects have been nominated (directly or by association) for an AVN award, a curious matter given how profligately AVN hands out award nominations. Does the "Best Directrix" award meet the ANYBIO standard of "well-known/significant"? I don't think anyone has made even a skimpy case to that effect; my local weekly newspaper, with a circulation several multiples that of AFG, gives out "Best" awards every year, in categories ranging from "Best Band" to "Best Bookstore (Used)" to "Best Restaurant (Mongolian)" to "Best Adult Entertainment Club", "Best Stripper," and "Best Bathroom" (in a restaurant with a liquor license), and none of those winners will ever be declared notable based on those awards. Morbidthoughts suggests that the AFG award nevertheless meets criterion 1 of WP:CREATIVE, which reads "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." I just don't see a single claim by a low-profile magazine as doing that (and certainly doesn't establish peer reputation), especially given the general lack of recognition her directorial work (totaling only 9 projects has otherwise received). I don't otherwise see any coverage satisfying the GNG; castlists in porn trade journals just aren't viewed as meeting GNG standards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Morbidthoughts, applying CREATIVE rather than PORNBIO is a bit of s stretch. She's more of a performer than a director.  Are you contending that she's been "regarded as an important figure" by directors generally?  I doubt if Scorsese's ever heard of her.  An adult director regarded as an important figure by adult directors?  AVN's awards are quite unlike the Oscars: they're decided by AVN's staff, not by peers.  If she were really regarded as important, one would find more than just the fact of an award.  When I wrote above about the reliability of the publications, I was not referring to the awards.  One might suppose that they know who they gave their own awards to, although in the adult industry, that is not always the case.  XRCO doesn't have records of who they gave awards to between 1982 and 1992, for example.  AVN doesn't bother keeping a lot of its old records online.  I was referring to the biographical information about Vespoli, which I should have written to make that clear.  I'm not sure if mainstream media would cite them for that.  I am not sure merely citing someone gives them a " reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  Reliable sources writing about compulsive liars or people with delusions may cite them in the course of writing about those people.  Does that render those people reliable sources generally?  BASIC says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."  AVN or AFG itself as the source for its award would not be independent of the subject.  XBIZ may not be intellectually independent.  As I wrote, they're questionable for non-BLPs as it is; for BLPs they're really questionable.  BASIC also states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."  The coverage of Vespoli is trivial and of no depth.  I agree with most of what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wrote here, except AFG used to have some degree of notability at least for Slade, and it seemed to me that Directrix of the Year probably meant Female Director of the Year, not a directorial consolation prize.  But XBIZ didn't cite to the publication (probably were just publishing a press release) or provide any detail about any of the awards, or who decides them, or an awards ceremony, etc. so we don't know for sure, I suppose. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I interpret peers in CREATIVE to be the adult industry in general. The companies, staff, and performers hold the awards in esteem even if they are deemed inconsequential to the mainstream. The comparison of AVN and XBIZ to liars and delusional people that reliable sources write about is not proper because reliable sources cite to AVN and XBIZ often about the pornography industry in general, even when the article is not about AVN or XBIZ. As an irrelevant aside there are records of past XRCO shows and winners in the form of VHS videos like the AVN Awards but they are now out of print. When Jim Holliday, its founder died, the paper records disappeared with him. The members that eventually took over running the awards built its current website after his death. Whether AVN bothers to keep its print records online is irrelevant as to its reliability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "I interpret peers in CREATIVE to be the adult industry in general." The adult industry in general isn't involved in voting on the AVN awards though, only AVN is.  "The companies, staff, and performers hold the awards in esteem" Maybe, though there's not great evidence of that.  Certainly there are people who attend the awards show.  But movie magazines unrelated to the Oscars will report all the winners, as will publications that aren't specific to film.  Adult magazines unrelated to AVN don't.  I suspect the awards weren't mentioned on Vespoli's site, but it's down and apparently unarchived beyond the front page.  I wonder if AVN made Max Hardcore give back the trophy he is reported to have stolen in Consider the Lobster .  AVN and XBIZ remain questionable sources that are not "often" cited, and not about all aspects of the business.  Perhaps the nature of my analogy used examples too extreme; the point was just that citing someone doesn't go beyond what they're being cited for, and isn't an analysis of their reliability.  "When Jim Holliday, its founder died, the paper records disappeared with him."  Exactly.  What does that say, do you think?  Would a new president of AMPAS result in the Margaret Herrick Library vanishing?  "winners in the form of VHS videos like the AVN Awards but they are now out of print."  The AVN Awards started in 1984.  It seems they started releasing videos of the awards ceremony in 1991.  The videos are, as you note, out of print.  The 2010 awards show has yet to be released.  The videos and DVDs don't contain the whole awards show, leaving out a great many of the categories, because the show is so long, I suppose.  As Angela Summers is said to have joked at the 1993 AVN Awards (when there were fewer awards than at present!), "AVN has more categories than Ron Jeremy has back hair..." (David Jennings.  Skinflicks: The Inside Story of the X-Rated Video Industry.  Bloomington, IN: 1st Books Library, 2000. p. 319.  Perhaps not an RS though.).  The website has the past nominees for 2010 and none earlier.  You're quite right that has nothing much to do with reliability.  The issue is notability.  They don't seem to think their past nominees or awards shows are notable, or that anybody else would either. I personally think they're wrong; that they should have all that available, because some people would be interested (myself included). But on the whole, not so many. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

3.Это факты.Всё остальное,как то,что эти ссылки вас не устраивают,есть ваше личное предвзятое отношение к данной статье.Да-да я подчёркиваю именно ваше отношение,хоть вы и хотите думать,что вы относитесь непредвзято...в общем мне ваш подход импонирует,но это не научный эксперимент и не исследование - это просто статья в wiki.--Johnsmith877 (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Шизомби,1.Есть номинация,подкреплённая ссылкой.(AVN)2.Есть награда подкрёплённая ссылкой.(Xbiz)
 * 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.