Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Michaels (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 14:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Gianna Michaels

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Content irrelevant, minor notability, fails WP:PORNBIO. ~ | twsx |talkcont| 09:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable, Wikipedia is not a directory of porn stars. No reliable sources given that would assert the person's notability. --sunstar nettalk 13:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep passes WP:PORNBIO #6. She has appeared in numerous films with several companies, especially in the "big bust" niche, since her somewhat/relatively recent introduction to the industry. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is no valid reason. WP:PORNBIO #6 not passed at all. ~ | twsx |talkcont| 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at her imdb and afb profiles. I'd say that's quite "prolific." In the last three years, she's appeared in numerous films, especially "big bust"-focused works, obviously her niche. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Having starred in a big list of movies does not qualify her as decisive to some genre, nor is "big bust" a niche. There is no proof that there is ANYTHING that uplifts her from hundreds of other pornstars. ~ | twsx |talkcont| 18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I expanded the article with more biographical information and references. Apparently, she was also a FAME 2006 "Favorite Breast" nominee. While that does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO #1, it certainly cements her validity under WP:PORNBIO #6 as being notable. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, "big bust" is most certainly a niche. If you watched any porn at all, you'd know that. Why else do we have people like Nadine Jansen and Chelsea Charms? See List of pornographic sub-genres. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Article shows multiple sources. She's appeared in over 100 films. Passes notability easily. Very questionable AfD nomination. Dekkappai 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The article shows NO sources that are of ANY concern to WP:PORNBIO, 100% failed. the two keep-votes are to be ignored, as they contain solely irrelevant argumentation, made by that strange kind of pornstar-article-fan. What you fail to understand is that while she may be very important to a porn fan, she is of zero notability to the general media and the public point of view. Orenor 08:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC) — Orenor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete → (nearly) Totally fails WP:PORNBIO. I don't watch porn films, and I'm not interested in this subject, so I have to decide based on simply what the WP guidelines say and the sources provided. And, with this sources, the WP:PORNBIO test fails. It's true that she appeared in 107, which is just over one hundred, but alone this don't establish notability. Happy Editing by  Snowolf (talk)CONCOI on  15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't watch porn, and you're not interested in the subject, how are you qualified to judge if she is "notable or prolific within a specific genre niche" (WP:PORNBIO #6)? I could go to an art museum and say that Artist XYZ is a nobody, and that they should take his paintings down, but I don't--because I'm not qualified. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment It's often pointed out at these AfDs that "I like it" is no reason for a keep. Besides the fact that neither two Keep votes mentioned anything about personal tastes, Wikipedia's non-censorship policy implies that "I don't like it" is an even worse reason to recommend deletion. If you don't like it, don't read it. Within one minute any one of us can find a dozen biographies on Wikipedia that are clearly far less notable, and far less sourced. Just a couple clicks brings up the totally unsourced stub on the fictional character Jason Shadwick, at which one of our Deletes has just edited. Clearly it is the subject that is the issue, not notability. This sort of POV bias has no place on Wikipedia. Over 100 films, multiple sourcing-- This subject is clearly notable, if the subject offends you, don't read it. And don't try to use Wikipedia as a means to spread your own personal prejudices. Dekkappai 20:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Still does not change that pornstar articles need to pass WP:PORNBIO, which this one does NOT. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 01:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Keep. I don't think WP:PORNBIO offers the best application of notability in this situation.  Name yields 200,000+ ghits;  100+ entries on IAFD. Mystache 02:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources for attribution. "This number is big" is a very arbitrary standard- we don't decide notability on personal opinions and by how impressed we are. We decide it based on the implication that notability will provide sources. --Wafulz 03:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Your reasoning makes no sense. The article itself has four sources that are reliable. This number of sources is about par for the course for an article if this size, if a little above average. A significant number of relevant search results on Google would also partially speak to notability. I really have no personal opinion on this matter, but it seems to me that the subject of this article is notable enough to have a reasonably-sourced article.LaMenta3 03:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should've clarified. From the sources presented, none of them are really about her, and only the interview is of a non-trivial length. If we were to use them, we would basically have a list of movies and some information backed up entirely by an interview about her, which is only a quasi-independent source. The award she won doesn't appear in Category:Adult movie awards (as required by WP:PORNBIO) either. --Wafulz 04:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to clarify that WP:PORNBIO doesn't require that she has won an award, or that if she has won one, that it be listed in the category. However, if she had won one, it would have satisfied the notability requirement. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:PORNBIO spells things out pretty clearly, and specifically advises against the "number of films" test. Krimpet 04:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While it discourages against strict counting films and google hits, it has the policy "notable and prolific"-- but can you honestly think of a better meter of notability/prolifity than her large number of films or the 500,000+ google results? How many more films would she have to do before you considered her notable? Also remember that she was a finalist for a pornographic award. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep There are basically three arguments going on here: 1) Whether she is notable; 2) Whether articles should be deleted merely for being poorly written or attributed; and 3) Whether pornography is a valid topic for Wikipedia. It's not an argument that has been specified until now, but it's in here.  I agree that Gianna Michaels should be considered for an article based on the fact that she was nominated for the "Favorite Breasts" award (even if WP:PORNBIO requires a victory--I think that's a bit narrow in scope; Wikipedia doesn't drop non-pornographic actors for never having won awards).  I am also concerned that a comment advocates non-consideration of the "keep" votes based on the commenter's gainsaying of the voters' comments without specific damning evidence.  Additionally, it is very difficult to find real journalism about pornography because most major media seem to add a porn angle to a story if said angle is particularly lurid, the better to increase sales.  As a result, it would seem that the central notability criterion is a bit circular in this case.  As for the unspoken argument about pornography's place in Wikipedia: here is my evidence that the argument is taking place.  We would not be having this discussion if the actress performed in some other genre than pornography.  Consider that there are quite a few performers (most of them, admittedly, young actors, singers, and musicians) who have only come to prominence in the same three-plus year timespan as Gianna Michaels.  My feeling is that pornography is a part of the human condition.  As such, it deserves clear, unbiased reportage.  I do not feel Wikipedia should be a directory of porn stars; performers come and go.  It should, however, be a leader in such coverage, if only because nobody else seems to be showing up until there's a tabloid-quality headline and byline to be had.  Gianna Michaels has had a great deal of success in a fairly short time in the industry, much like, say, Clay Aiken has had in music.  (I dare say she has sold more media, in fact.) —Boomshadow
 * Delete - On the basis that she just does sex scenes and doesn't "act" in features. Nothing is outstanding or groundbreaking about her. Her number of films and the amount of time she has been in the industry is relatively small. Doesn't meat any of the 6 valid criteria listed in WP:PORNBIO. Keep in mind people the amount of porn on the internet in general when you are talking about google hits in this subject. - Arch NME 05:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Nominated for a FAME award along with household names like Jenna Jameson and Tera Patrick as well as Carmen Luvana, Mercedez, Penny Flame, Sandee Westgate, and Stormy. Performer has been prolific within a specific genre - big breasts. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 09:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The FAME award is not listed Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards, as required in WP:PORNBIO. It doesn't really matter if other famous people are nominated and win it- I could make up the Waffy awards and hand them out to random people and pornstars too. "Prolific" is not defined by number of productions. We'd need independent sources claiming this. --Wafulz 16:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, if I were to write a reasonably developed and referenced article about the FAME awards and categorized it under Category:Adult movie awards, Gianna Michaels and any other porn actor/actress who had won or been a finalist for one of their awards would suddenly be notable? Somehow I don't think WP:PORNBIO has thought its cunning plan all the way through... LaMenta3 03:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - other pornstars are on Wikipedia, and she appears to be on the rise. Guroadrunner 06:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I can understand people doubting her talent and morality but that has nothing to do with a person's notability. Pornstars are allowed on Wikipedia and she is one of the top ones. She is certainly one of the top ten large natural breast stars at the moment and anyone interested in that popular genre will know of her. The high awareness of her work therefore makes her notable. Epbr123 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since the trend seems to be for doing away with WP:PORNBIO's "cunning plan" by merging it with Notability (people), let's check that guideline: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." and further for Entertainers: "Multiple features in credible magazines and newspapers, A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following, A credible independent biography, Wide name recognition..." Ms. Michaels seems to pass every one of these criteria. Dekkappai 02:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Referring to Boomshadow's comment, I personally think that WP:PORNBIO in this case is slightly distorted as had Gianna been a model who primarily made her name in the video market rather than website scenes (hence the number of sites about her and her appearances ) to begin with she probably would have more notability to check against the lists. Judging by her overture search ranking per month which is approaching 50,000 unique searches (49281 for last month to be exact) I definitely think that she should be kept it. The wikipedia page for her is high in search engines such as google as well so if she was deleted people would continue to recreate this page until it was finally accepted she was notable (at some point in the future as she continues to grow). On this and a number of other factors, including her varied and high profile work according to the iafd and the pure number of fans and dedicated sites/pages about her I would say she is a definite keep, even if the article could do with a bit of expansion in some departments.
 * Keep - She is the subject of multiple independent published works. --Oakshade 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Everyking 05:41, 10 March 2007 (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.