Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Jordan


 * 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. However, should discussion on whether the sources are reliable decide in the negative, no prejudice against a rapid renomination. Shi meru  07:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Jana Jordan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:PORNBIO (single year nom only); no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline, one passing mention in GNews PR hit. Prod removed on pony theory Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Keep - per MichaelQSchmidt's observation. Article is reliably sourced. moreno oso (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Pony theory sees extensive coverage from the references in both industry trade journals, XBIZ and AVN, that are considered reliable sources for pornography. Therefore, the article passes the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Response. The pony theory, made popular by Ronald Reagan, refers to someone so determined to see the result they want that they fail to see basic facts. His paradigm was the child who, presented with a giant pile of horse manure, dived into it excitedly, proclaiming that with that much horse manure around, there had to be a pony in it somewhere. Neither Xbiz nor AVN pages typically meet WP:RS requirements; the great majority of them are press releases (not always acknowledged as such) or promotional pieces assembled from PR presskits. Most of the remaining coverage that you cite simply includes the performer's name in passing in a castlist or laundry list. The GNG isn't satisfied by trivial coverage, nor nonindependent promo pieces.  It requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," which does not include "works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." You say there's a pony in there? Identify and cite the sources you say support notability. Otherwise you're just pointing to a pile of manure. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While having the industry sources as User:Morbidthoughts mentioned would be nice for editors to review, is there now an expectation that porn stars can only be notable if covered in Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, or New York Times? If no to my rhetorical question, then just which industry sources can be considered reliable for sourcing this industry... if any?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "No" is, of course, the answer to the straw-man rhetorical question. An essential point, often made on the reliable sources noticeboard, is that both the identity of the publishing source and the character of the published piece need to be taken into account. When my local newspaper publishes a piece on a local government meeting, based on its reporter's attending the meeting, it's much more likely to satisfy RS than when it publishes a report on the upcoming speaker at the Garden Club, based on the Garden Club's press release and the speaker's promotional biography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My question to you was made in a good faith inquiry for elucidation. I'll restate it in simple terms and without the rhetorical so that we do not go off on a non-porn tangent:  As porn stars are rarely covered in any detail outside their industry, just which industry sources would you then be satisfied with as suitable for sourcing this industry?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the extent to which the standard adult industry trade publication sites repubublish/recycle/rewrite press releases and other promo material, there's no cut-and-dried answer to this question. As is so often pointed out on the reliable sources noticeboard, for most if not all publishers, their contents don't have a uniform reliability level. Even the New York Times once ran a gossip(ish) column called "Boldface Names," which was generally less likely to meet WP:RS than the paper's national news reporting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which would then bring this discussion back to consideration of the industry-specific the sources as offered in the article and as proffered by User:Morbidthoughts. I think then, that rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, each need be examined individually, with an understanding that the nature of the magazines and the industry seems to mandate a style of article different from what one might find in more mainstreanm sources.  To paraphrase the adage about bees and insects, while press releases in Xbiz or AVN are not articles, and similarity is tone and style aside, not all articles in Xbiz or AVN are press releases.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * XBIZ consistently denotes when it publishes a press release. Compare to . AVN is less obvious about separating their news stories from their press release but they do. Compare press releases to .  References 4-8 are all independent enough for me. It's also clear that XBIZ and AVN actually interviewed Jordan for their news stories. Compare these two intellectually different articles about the same topic. . Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That very first link you provide,, is a perfect example of XBIZ dressing up promo material and presenting it as a faux "news story." Compare it to the parallel AVN piece, which was easy enough to find , where AVN does the same thing. These are presskit articles, with all content drawn from PR/promotional material. The main quotes are identical, the content is virtually identical, with XBIZ paraphrasing a quote that AVN recites in longer form; they even use the same publicity photo!.  This is why the great majority of AVN/XBIZ content fails WP:RS; it's not genuinely independent of the subject, but is based on PR/publicity/promotional material prepared by subject's employer and reused uncritically. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep as per above and Morbid. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom, no reliable sources to establish notability. Fails GNG. DiiCinta (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Question While there's only one year of award noms in the article text, 2009, she's pictured holding an X-Rated Critics Organization trophy from 2007. Is that an award, or something less than that?  It seems to be a trophy for trophy presenters? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * She was the "Trophy Girl" for the ceremony, not an award winner or even a presenter. It seems to be a very low rent parallel to "Miss Golden Globes," (and we'll skip the obvious jokes) which itself isn't treated as an award or conferring notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Absent someone finding evidence for notability of the Heart-on Girl trophy, or of her having "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" it doesn't appear Jana Jordan meets the guidelines at this time. If she gets another nomination or something else notable develops, the article could be recreated. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Consensus has always been that AVN and XBiz are reliable sources. Due the massive effect it will have porn star articles, a wider discussion would be needed before it can be determined that the consensus has changed. Epbr123 (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they can be reliable sources, though I think reproduction of press releases would be generally excluded as not being independent of the subject and not having editorial oversight. For some facts, reproduced press releases might be uncontroversial.  But I think the issue is not so much about that as whether or not she can meet any of the WP:PORNBIO criteria or WP:GNG? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but there's no conclusive evidence that the sources found are indeed mere reproductions of press releases with no editorial oversight. Epbr123 (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2010 (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.