Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elexis Monroe


 * 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. The discussion seemed to focus on two guidelines: WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Those in favour of deletion argued that Monroe does not meet the GNG, a point never substantially challenged by those wanting to keep the article. PORNBIO was difficult, because there was not even agreement that is was an adequate guideline. Nevertheless, the consensus seemed to be that, whether or not the guideline is useful, Monroe does not pass it. The notability of certain awards was contentious and perhaps not fully resolved; however, those favouring deletion argued that the the nominations received are not sufficient to pass PORNBIO. Thus, the consensus was to delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Elexis Monroe

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A totally NN pornstar - does not even meet the not-guildeline PORNBIO Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Bad-faith nomination, you didn't notify the creator (me) of this, and WP:PORNBIO is still a guideline.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 06:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete All sources are non-notable porn websites (attempts by the porn industry to give itself publicity). AVN award is a promotional award by porn industry. WP:PORNBIO is too lax and it's under discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people). (same as Janet Mason's AfD, which has similar problems) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * XBIZ is a non-notable website? Since when? By the way, I find it highly interesting that you are !voting "delete" in the exact same way in the same articles that Hipocrite is bringing to AfD.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 09:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You notified the world about this afd on WP:ANI. Shocker, then, that people are going to show up. Hipocrite (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Enric put in his vote before I did that.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 16:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Falsehood. 06:36, 26 April 2012. Hipocrite (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So I made a mistake. At least I'm still acting in good faith instead of bringing articles to AfD just because I have a dispute with the creator.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 06:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Hipocrite/nom and Enric Naval. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * keep 3 AVN nominations is sufficient notability. Yes industry awards, but so are oscars, grammys, tonys, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Delete votes have flawed understanding of what makes an award notable. AVN is only part of and promotes the industry in the sense that they report on the industry as a trade journal and as porn critics. Besides the nominations passes the current version of PORNBIO and also under the proposed tightened version PORNBIO that is currently being discussed on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, no independent coverage outside the narrow sphere of the industry's self-promotion machinery, for which the author evidently wishes to create an outpost on Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 10:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes the proposed tightened version PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then that tightened version is still ridiculously out of touch with project-wide standards elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to you, perhaps. And the article is not going to be deleted simply because you don't like WP:PORNBIO, and neither will this.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 05:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PORNBIO and MorbidThoughts. Dismas |(talk) 13:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:PORNBIO alone simply cannot sustain an article. If it does not meet the WP:GNG and does not appear to have a reasonable chance of being saved via the "sources are likely out there somewhere" argument, then it should be deleted.  The practice of using the Wikipedia as free advertising for every two-bit wannabe starlet must be brought to an end. Tarc (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article includes no reliably sourced biographical content, and, aside from the nominations listings, is sourced entirely from unreliable/promotional/vendor pages. Subject has only one AVN nomination, despite comments otherwise here, and that in a downlevel category with no discernible standards -- that the porn industry is now declaring 30-year-olds to be "milfs"/"cougars"/older women is just ersatz marketing that lacks encyclopedic significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you were paying attention, you'd notice that she has one AVN nomination and two XBIZ nominations. And what is this edit summary even supposed to mean? BTW, it isn't cool to delete an entire section of sourced material to make it look as though the person isn't notable.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 23:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Erpert, the HW edit was correct and his edit summary is almost clear. A producer/director that declares that an actress that is under exclusive contract with her is the best actress in the kind of stuff that the same Nica Noelle produces is clearly a not-independent claim. Cavarrone (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But how do we know she was under contract at the time Noelle said that?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for me. The subject of the article not only (obviously) passes the actual PORNBIO but even passes its tightened version that is under discussion in these days (and that seems to have consensus) in reason of the multiple noms in acting/performing categories (no scene award nor group award categories). Also passes the ANYBIO#1 requirements. Cavarrone (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  01:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. All the delete votes are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT or otherwise faulty reasoning.SPNic (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting contribution history there; a contributor of nothing but one-liner "per user x" and "those delete votes suck", never really providing an actual reason for retention just as the entrty for this AfD is empty. A WP:SPA in spirit if not in technicality. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're a jerk. It's becoming more and more obvious that this needs to be closed.SPNic (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In shorthand, we might call this a WP:ILIKEIT argument, eh? Carrite (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - my heart bleeds for this individual but the only discernible purpose of this article is a shameless promotion of a foreign commercial interest. This can easily be evidence by the fact that this apparent bio excludes the individual's name, only packaging branding information and promotions of adult only product. Last but not least the brand in question is of sub standard quality having failed to receive any industry endorsements from the AVN. I would suggest removing the article on the grounds that this is a non notable sub-standard brand and is deceptive and manipulative to try to include it in wikipedia. In this case none of the sources are WP:RS sources as they are tainted by commercial/promotional concerns and cannot be creadibly used to demonstrate WP:V. BO ; talk 14:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not the subject of multiple, substantial, independent pieces of published coverage in so-called reliable sources. The so-called AVN awards are of interest only to the AVN and should no more provide a free pass here than the Footwear News awards should provide a free pass to minor shoe company executives. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Carrite, please read the revamped WP:PORNBIO. She passes it (in fact, she passed the old version).  Erpert  Who is this guy? 17:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AVN awards are still notable under PORNBIO. Notability is based on what the guidelines are, not according to what the voter thinks they should be.SPNic (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Abject failure of GNG. Carrite (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Simply doesn't meet the WP:PORNBIO standards. Only has 3 nominations, which isn't nearly close enough to overlook that she's never won an award. -- NINTENDUDE 64 01:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources are insufficient to establish notability under the GNG.  Eluchil404 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the sources support notability. None contain independent coverage in prose. The interviews are promotion, and primary, and first person coverage. YouTube is not an acceptable source for supporting notability. Several sources support facts, but we are not a database. Sources on the awards say nothing in the form of commentary on the person. Three nominations and no wins for industry-promoting awards is a very weak claim for notability. There is no sign that any other reputable source has taken notice. The references are little more than a link farm. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please note that PORNBIO says, "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times" - neither is true (she was nominated for three different awards, which does not qualify. Admittedly a technicality, but remember that PORNBIO is not really a standard - it's under discussion and in dispute). It also says, "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent." None is true, or at least none are supported by the article or its references. It also says, "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." This is ALSO not true, or at least not supported by the article. I think she doesn't meet WP:GNG, either. Marikafragen (talk) 02:14, 10 May 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.