Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabbie Carter


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Gabbie Carter

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails ANYBIO, NACTOR, and the GNG. No actual claim of notability. No reliable sourcing. This BLP is entirely sourced/referenced to PR copy, promotional churnalism, and thoroughly unreliable clickbait sites like Therichestcelebrity.com (which actually states "Gabbie Carter is the most outstanding model in entertainment history", a statement so absurd that any competent editor would recognize that the source was completely unusable.) Run-of-the mill porn performer with the standard collection of tinfoil awards handed out by PR businesses to their advertisers and clients, "distinguished" only, to be frank, by her underage appearance. That doesn't merit coverage in an encyclopedia. Delete and redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability of Any biography at WP:BIO:
 * 1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
 * 2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.
 * The adult film industry is covered by its own media, like AVN, X-Rated Critics Organization, XBIZ and other publishers. These bodies have already nominated and awarded Carter, although she has in the industry for less than two years, and has made 120 films during this period of time.
 * Dan Miller wrote at AVN about Carter:


 * "I have been booking models for 22 years and I have never seen such a huge response to a brand new model", John Steven, Carter's agent.
 * "Every director who has worked with her has picked up the phone on their own and called me to say how amazing it was to work with her [...] The only time I usually get calls is to tell me that there was a problem with the shoot", Steven.
 * "She’s the highest rated model on my site", Kayden Kross, director.
 * "I definitely think she’s the new one", Laurent Sky, director.
 * "Gabbie was an impressively natural performer. I loved her style, work ethic and easy-going attitude", Lena Paul, actress.
 * "Listen, I think she is one of the next biggest stars in the porn industry", Manuel Ferrara, actor.
 * "She’s a new superstar on the rise here in our industry”, Mick Blue, actor.
 * "I was really surprised with how quickly it escalated", Gabbie Carter.
 * Carter stands the WP:PORN guidelines, and the article exists in seven additional Wikipedias.
 * AVN is not Carter's agent, does not sell her films in its website, and its images are censored. AVN is a secondary source like all the other media.
 * Penthouse pets have not done 120 films during less than two years.
 * I also did not find room for the claim "underage appearance". Carter played as an adult, and did not pretend to be a minor. Dgw (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO; WP:PORNBIO is deprecated; the sourcing is appalling, the article is essentially a massive BLP violation, and the promotional soundbytes from porn industry people posted above contribute nothing to encyclopedic notability. Spicy (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable pronographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Notability claims are based on low quality sources. This is why WP:PORNBIO was deprecated in 2019 and why porn awards can't satisfy WP:ANYBIO. This actress would not even have passed PORNBIO when the SNG was in effect, since porn award nominations are given out so prolifically. As stated above, the porn accolades are standard industry fluff coming from an industry propaganda organ. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The claim: "In porn, the press to industry relationship is notoriously incestuous", which has been written at Carter's talk page, is a bias against AVN. In the same breath you may claim that The New York Times is not a reliable source when it deals with Donald Trump, as it was stated in The New York Times: "During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, the Times did print the words "fuck" and "pussy," among others, when reporting on the vulgar statements made by Donald Trump in a 2005 recording" (Trump was not the president in 2005). The Hebrew Israel Hayom supports Benjamin Netanyahu, but is accepted as a secondary source, and has a template for citation. Dgw (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have not mentioned the New York Times, Donald Trump or the use of profanity, please don't put words in my mouth. That said, in general, news reporting from a mainstream source with a good reputation for fact checking is considered more reliable than even mainstream industry trade mags.  In its guidance about sources, the Porn Project warns about AVN especially. Interviews and content based on what the subject says are not considered fact-checked sources that are intellectually independent of the subject. Press releases also fail the independence test. AVN is a source that should be treated with caution, and statements of excellence by AVN need independent WP:RS support for Wikipedia notability purposes. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not seen such warning in WP:PORN. It wrote: "AVN.com: generally reliable for adult industry news and movie reviews". Dan Miller, Editor-in-chief at AVN who has been covering the business of adult entertainment since 2001, interviewed Kayden Kross, Laurent Sky, Lena Paul, Manuel Ferrara, Mick Blue, Carter and Carter's agent, and they said their words about Carter. Nobody showed that it was fake or edited. His views on adult entertainment trends have been published by Time, CNN, The Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, The Daily Beast, HuffPost, Fox News, LA Weekly, Los Angeles Daily News, Las Vegas Weekly, GQ Australia and Salon (website). Dgw (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You left out this part about AVN: "though it does not indicate when an article is a press release." Nobody is calling it fake.  It can be called churnalism however.  Interviews, press releases and other material sourced to the subject are self-serving in nature.  They cannot support claims of notability with out independent support. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If inexperienced actress goes in the film industry, they would not say it about her. When Miller interviews them, it is his own work, not a promotion which has been sent from a film company. Carter's agent told Miller in AVN: "She also has bookings scheduled in Japan, Italy, Paris and London in the coming months" (it was before the Corona crisis). Dgw (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * An interview is what the subject says about herself. No matter how famous the interviewer is, it does not establish notability. Passing on what the agent says does not contribute to notability. Even an AVN Hall of Fame citation does not make a porn star notable. It takes more than porn trade press to attest to the significance of porn achievement. Finally, we are going back and forth about a single porn press article, while notability generally relies on multiple non-trivial, independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:PORN does not have any warning about Xbiz.com, and it has 49 results of Carter, with nominating Carter as the Best Female Performer for the 28th Annual NightMoves Awards (Tampa, Fl). It has also its site.
 * By Xbiz.com, the Top 10 performers in AEBN's straight theaters are:
 * 1. Angela White (playing 17 years).
 * 2. Gabbie Carter (playing less than two years).
 * Full deteails are here. Dgw (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A look through the 49 XBiz hits produces the usual: repackaged press releases, announcements and award rosters. The only hit for a real article was XBiz talking up her nomination for an XBiz Award. Nominations come from XBiz clients. Night Moves is a self-published source for an award that didn't cut it when PORNBIO was in effect. As for AEBN, are you serious? Being listed among the top selling porn stars of the quarter by a porn blog is ephemeral and trivial coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * An Interview tells everything about the person who talks. In March 2020 Netanyahu said: "I am navigating the Titanic" in an interview, and could not void his words. Carter said correct words, in spite of she was younger. Dgw (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As Wikipedia makes no use of this interview, how is this relevant? Notable people are interviewed.  Interviews don't make them notable.  For Wikipedia purposes, interviews are primary sources that are generally not fact checked in real time.  They can used to attribute statements or fill in basic facts as long as they are not unduly self-serving. Netanyahu's notability is supported by citations to dozens of factual reports from reputable news agencies. Gabbie Carter's RS coverage is close to nil. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have to use a citation for showing that it was improper. The state of Israel is not a sinking vessel, and its prime minister did not have to use the "Titanic" word. Trump lashed out at social media companies after Twitter labeled tweets with fact checks, and it was written in Wikipedia. AVN interview was exact and reliable, and the industry people said the exact words about Carter. Carter is not the Titanic, but a rising star and she knows it. She charges 10 USD monthly to follow her and has 7,800 likes, which are 78,000 USD for her. She had 223 posts, with average 35 likes per post. Dgw (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You have ceased to make any sense at all. Netanyahu's statement has zero relevance in Wikipedia. Twitter's flagging of a head of state's most obvious and egregious abuse of the platform does not give Twitter an even credible reputation for fact checking. WaPo notes the head of state's abusive behavior. Again, this has nothing to do with Gabbie Carter and has no bearing on the value of the AVN source. Finally, popularity and financial success are not notability, especially without the acknowledgment from independent, reliable sources. Most porn stars are popular. Reliable sources take little note of that. There is no point to continuing with this thread, absent relevant evidence of reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is Carter, not me. Phrases like "You left out this part about AVN", "are you serious?", "You have ceased to make any sense at all" may not be accepted in Wikipedia. Dgw (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pointing out faults in low quality evidence, evidence-free arguments and way-off-topic tangents does not constitute a personal attack. It is a challenge to the arguments presented. The selective of a quotation is a fact. Citing flagged propaganda to justify the use of porn industry propaganda, flies in the face of Wikipedia standards to the point of absurdity. Trump and Netanyahu are extreme cases of whataboutism. You are straying so too far off topic for dialog to be productive.  Again, please produce evidence that is relevant.  Otherwise, you are wasting time. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The circular jerkage of xbiz and avn covering their own industry starlets does not meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Zaathras (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep from the notability guidelines I think she has substantial background to be listed on this site. Juju (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * deletion its been a long time since assertion or making shit up and claiming its a reason to keep a substandard article has carried any weight. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing and even the basic low bar of the GNG isn't met. Spartaz Humbug! 12:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:GNG, only SIGCOV is in unreliable sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2020 (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.