Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gracie Glam


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Gracie Glam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable pornstar. She has an AVN Award for Best New Starlet, which satisfies the additional criteria for WP:Pornbio, but she fails WP:GNG, based on the sources on her page. The only reference "independent of the subject" is a CNBC publicity-motivated, top-pornstar list. Everything else is the usual iafd, AVN, and such. Redban (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep, clearly meets WP:PORNBIO and very likely WP:GNG. AVN Award for Best New Starlet is undoubtly one of the major awards in this field and clearly meets the requirements of our guideline. CNBC is an unquestionably a reliable source as discussed multiple times on WP:RSN, and being included in a "top-pornstar list" CNBC article is possibly an additional claim of notability, surely not a reason for deletion. The article "The Fresh Effect" from AVN Magazine, Vol.26/No.6, Issue 331, is also a reliable source, not a press release but a genuine journalistic piece (part of the yearly "Fresh Effect" series which analyze year by year the most important names, products and trends of the year). No real basis for this nom outside WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cavarrone  20:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The CNBC article is straight junk, a list by someone likely as qualified as you or I. Moreover, the WP: GNG emphasizes "significant coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail ... [and] is more than a trivial mention." That list gives a mere 50-word paragraph on Gracie, which is trivial. And the AVN article that you mention is not "Independent of the subject." The date of publication (2010) makes me believe Gracie's mention was to hype her upcoming appearance in the 2011 AVN-awards, where she won Best New Starlet. The page fails WP:GNG. Redban (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Redban, Glam clearly passes PORNBIO so the whole discussion is quite moot, anyway as explained in our guidelines, "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There is a big difference between a biographical paragraph enterely devoted to a subject and a "trivial mention" (eg. being cited in a list of names, see also the example of trivial mention cited in the guideline). About the 15-pages-long AVN article, it includes a few other biographies and apparently none of the portrayed people except Glam won an award the following year. Such series of yearly articles regularly include portraits of names who will not win nor won any award, and several names who are not even nominated to such awards (eg Amy Brooke in the article in question). It is perfectly reasonable that, in an article focusing on the big names of the year, one or even two of them will win an award one year later. We can agree the cited sources are here on the thin side, but your derogatory comments ("straight junk", "publicity-motivated article") and your speculations about date of publications, hype and so on, are just that, nothing more than speculations and personal opinions, and we don't delete articles on the basis of a random guy's personal bias, but just if they fail our policies and our guidelines. Cavarrone 22:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reluctant keep . Delete and redirect to AVN Best New Starlet Award. The article contains no significant, reliably sourced biographical content and no claim to notability beyond the award. In this situation, broad community consensus (not limited to porn) has been that redirects to list articles can be appropriate, and I believe that should be the standard treatment for BLPs in sensitive subject areas. (revised) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC) The GNG failures pointed out by the nominator are real, but the intensely-worked-through consensus discussions at the last revisions of PORNBIO gave even specific support to the "New Starlet" awards as a strong indicator of notability that I'm unwilling to reject it at this point, even though I didn't agree with it in those discussions. I'd consider changing my !vote if others are ready to revisit the balance here. The nominator is quite correct, however, in dismissing the CNBC recognition as unimportant: the source cited is not CNBC editorial content, but hosted writing from a blogger/stringer who is not even employed by CNBC. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Hullaballoo. If you look better the author of the article is  Chris Morris, who is an established CNBC journalist. . Cavarrone  20:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Cavarrone, I'm definitely right on this one. Morris isn't listed on either of the CNBC staff pages ("Anchors & Reporters" ; "Contributors" ). His own homepage describes as a freelance journalist identifies him as a "freelance writer and editor" with many clients including CNBC. He sure looks like a reliable source for factual information, but his opinions are his own, and should not be credited to the editorial voice of his clients, or given the weight of them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, ok, a freelance journalist, good investigation. We ultimately and definitely agree, he's a valid source for factual information, not for his opinions. Cavarrone 22:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Source could be better but notability's there and plus consensus is different with different topics, I see no reason to delete a fully sourced article at all. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Notability's there" -- how? From her winning the Best New Starlet AVN award? WP:Pornbio says at the top, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The award, by itself, doesn't grant notability. I don't find the CNBC and AVN sources enough to satify WP:GNG. Redban (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The award is not just an odd criterium of notability for pornographic actors, it is a basic criterium applied for ANY biography (see WP:ANYBIO). "Meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" is not something relevant to PORNBIO, it is relevant to every specific biographical notability guideline, and you cannot cite the sentence out of context: "People are likely to be 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". furthermore "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."  When Davey writes that "notability's there" he is entirely correct, community discussed literally for years notability criteria regarding pornographic actors which are actually quite strict, and winning an individual AVN award certainly meets the criteria. You need to have strong, specific arguments to ask for the deletion of an article about a subject who unambiguously passes our notability guidelines, and here you have not. Drop the stick. Cavarrone  00:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Gracie Glam clearly passes WP:PORNBIO. She won the AVN Best New Starlet Award in 2011, which is one of the most prestigious awards in the adult entertainment industry. Redban has absolutely no real concerns over the WP:GNG. He is just frustrated that the Wikipedia article on one of his favorite porn stars, Audrey Bitoni, was deleted. He stated in Bitoni's discussion "Either this page remains or you remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia", which is his only motivation for starting these AfD's. This is very disruptive behavior which should result in Redban being blocked. It's not like he has even contributed anything useful to this encyclopedia. Have you all seen what he has done to Eva Angelina's article? It's a mess now and sourced mostly to her Twitter and porn studio websites like Brazzers and Naughty America. Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Relax, no need to suggest blockages. By starting an AFD, I do not disrupt the website because the community collectively makes the call to delete, not I. In other words, I simply start the discussion; the others collectively provide the verdict.Redban (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rebecca1990 is apparently right, you tried to keep Bitoni's article on the thin basis that "her twitter page has 134,000 followers" while "Gracie Glam has 91,000 followers on twitter", then, once Bitoni's article was deleted you tried to take revenge on Glam and others. Redban, you are a brand new editor, so you certainly have not yet read Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, plus a bunch of other guidelines and policies. We don't keep or delete articles on the basis of our personal tastes, this is not THE GAME nor the deletion discussions are a popularity test, we just  judge articles because on their compliance with guidelines. Nominating articles on subjects you know they are notable plus being combative and polemic towards everyone disagrees with you just because you are frustated IS disruptive and at best it is a giant waste of time for the community who could spend their time doing something better than commenting in such odd discussions.  Cavarrone  08:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rebecca's comments amount to a bad faith attempt to intimidate a relatively new user editing in good faith from taking positions she opposes. While "Best New Starlet" is an award that by consensus is prima facie evidence of notability, that result was hardly undisputed. The position Redban takes here -- that winning the award is insufficient to sustain an article without other significant coverage in reliable sources -- may not be artfully stated in this discussion, but it lines up with the positions taken by other, more experienced editors in the extensive discussions we've had about PORNBIO, as, for example, here . It's inappropriate for an editor on one side of an ongoing dispute is bound by limits that their side regularly ignores. This is ultimately a dispute over the interpretation of a notability guideline; Rebecca herself has regularly challenged such interpretations that they disagree with, and Redban's position has been supported in the past by experienced editors. They've done npthing wrong here -- but Rebecca has, and not for the first time. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk)`
 * Rebecca1990's comment does not look like bad faith to me; she is merely stating a fact since Redban's comment on the other AfD was in the line of "since I can't have any candy, you can't either!". Highly discouraged and disruptive behavior at Wikipedia. Nymf (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - The AVN Best New Starlet Award is literally one of the most "well-known and significant industry awards" that exists in the adult film industry. There is also nothing wrong with any of the sources that are currently in this article, as they only really need to be independent of the subject of the article in question (which is Gracie Glam) not of the industry that a particular subject happens to work in mostly or partially. As far as I can tell, there's never been any concensus that "Newcomer awards should be excluded" from the PORNBIO standard.
 * This AfD is an excellent example of why new Wikipedia editors really shouldn't be allowed at AfD. It's a waste of everyone's time and is therefore at least mildly (if not intentionally) disruptive. Guy1890 (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: This should be closed. Even Hullaballoo Wolfowitz agrees that it should be kept.--Milowent • hasspoken  17:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - win, so meets the requirements. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   21:04, 14 December 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.