Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Haze


 * 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Jenna Haze

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources are not good enough to meet the gng and porn awards no longer provide notability. Spartaz Humbug! 21:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per the deprecated WP:PORNBIO guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Congratulations for nominating a GA-class article for deletion. Is this a first? Haze passes WP:ENTERTAINER given that CNBC wrote that she was "arguably the most popular performer in the porn" in 2011 and was also rated as one of the 12 most popular porn actress in 2012. She has the following coverage passing the GNG. Her scenes have been the subject of academic criticism. Oh, she has also won the usual multiple awards and hall of fame status that triggered the nomination, evidence toward WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Are you serious considering this article for deletion? The subject person's really relevant for the twentieth century culture.u v u l u m (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: She has had minor non-porn roles and her success in porn and notability is quite routine and unencyclopedic.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User blocked for sockpuppetry. ミラP 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, with almost all sources being porn mags. Inclusion in a list alongside many others and a single sentence does not qualify as a "significant cult following". The sources provided above are not reliable, with the exception of one, which is not enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. An editor claimed Haze is "really relevant for the twentieth century culture." Since this is indeed, if true, a most significant attribute, our fellow editor is invited to help the AfD process by providing sources supporting the veracity of their claim. For my part, I could not unearth anything in the Britannica, any Art in America back issues lying around, or the Philosophy Today archives. -The Gnome (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As none of those publications are known for any coverage of porn-related topics at even the broadest cultural level (e.g. more than acknowledging it exists), that's hardly relevant. This argument is like claiming a a basketball player is non-notable because no specialist soccer, hockey or American football publications have covered him in depth. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A claim was made, The Drover&#39;s Wife, that our subject is "really relevant for the twentieth century culture." To establish this, a Wikipedia editor's unsupported claim is, of course, not enough (not acceptable, actually). We need sources. There have been persons from all walks of life that have been assessed by Wikipedia-acceptable sources (not necessarily the ones I proffered, in way of example) as, indeedd, "culturally relevant," be they sculptors, painters, writers, actors, athletes, etc. Among porn performers, at least one porn film, the one starring Linda Lovelace (another often cited cultural icon), has been assessed as having wide cultural significance and we have major media sources as well as books and academic papers establishing this. If we cannot find many other persons or works related to the porn industry as having "cultural relevance" that is not some evidence of "anti-porn bias", but simply what sources contain.
 * In sum, we have no sources whatsoever supporting the claim made about the cultural significance of this AfD's subject. -The Gnome (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * She doesn't have to be considered "really relevant to the twentieth century culture" to have a Wikipedia article. She has to pass WP:GNG. These attempts to set up bars that have no basis in any Wikipedia notability guideline or policy whatsoever for the sake of finding something you can declare she doesn't pass are unique, to say the last. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You continue to comment in haste, The Drover&#39;s Wife. I'd suggest you slow down a bit and view things from a distance to gain some perspective. I did not claim that our subject person must be relevant to the culture of the 20th century or of any other century in order to have a Wikipedia article. What happened is that a claim was made by fellow editor Uvulum to that effect. (Uvulum wrote: "The subject person is really relevant for the twentieth century culture".) That has been the sole reasoning Uvulum gave for their Keep suggestion and I merely asked wherther we could have sources supporting that quite significant claim. Is it clear now?
 * This is a rather legthy AfD and people can be excused if they do not read through the whole thing. But they should do so if they intend to comment in it. Saves time. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You made an absurd argument suggesting that the lack of mention in Encyclopedia Britannica, an art publication (!) or Philosophy Today had any bearing whatsoever on assessing her cultural significance. I pointed out the fallaciousness of that reasoning. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I gave examples of publications (and there are myriads of them) that we can use to show a person has "cultural significance". Jenna Haze does not have any such significance whatsoever. Uvulum claimed she has, but the claim is without any substance. And what you're doing here now is totally wrong! Admit that you grossly misunderstood the situation, and let it go. It's truly high time. -The Gnome (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't misunderstand anything: you, in your own words, right there, suggested that an absence of material in those sources was in any way relevant to a consideration of the cultural significance of the subject, knowing full well that neither of them deal with more than perhaps the broad existence of her line of work. People can always disagree about sourcing, but these ridiculous attempts to avoid having to have that discussion by trying to establish impossible bars or make up imaginary guidelines in the hope no one notices are going to get a predictably derisory response. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article is listed as a good article. I believe the best procedure would be first discuss your good article condition and then a AfD. For respect to the process of defining good articles.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. An article appearing on Wikipedia has to verifiably meet certain criteria of notability. And after it appears, the article may rise to become a great one, as far as presentation, sourcing, photos, language, etc, are concerned. But when the criteria for inclusion change, then we do not assess inclusion by "how well the article is written" but by whether or not its subject meeets the new criteria. WP:PORNBIO is out, folks! Articles, from stubs to GAs, that only meet WP:PORNBIO (a dead & buried criterion) are to be defenestratated. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Morbidthoughts. Lots of references on this article. No, porn actors don't end up in Philosophy Today, but pornography is an interesting subject, and I think you should judge the notability on equivalent people. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pornography is no longer a subject assessed by the criteria you personally set with your comments, . A porn related subject may well be notable in daily/everyday life but Wikinotabiolity is something different. Does our subject meet WP:NACTOR? This is a question we would not, of course, ask in real lie, but we do ask it here. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He didn't refer to WP:PORNBIO, which was the only thing that was abolished; he argued that it met normal notability criteria, as he's perfectly entitled to do (and which it does). She's not an actor, so WP:NACTOR doesn't provide us helpful guidance here; rather, like for millions of other articles with no subject-specific criteria, we assess notability through the sources. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We have to show that our subject person meets the notability criteria of any other person. If to show that we only use porn-related sources, all wed be doing is establishing that the person exists and is related to porn; yet, there is no inherent notability in that! Invoking only or mainly porn-related sources, porn awards, multiple appearances on porn movies, and so on, in order to crash through WP:GNG is essentially proceeding as if WP:PORNBIO is still with us. And I'm saying, let it rest in peace. -The Gnome (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, if we only use porn-related sources for someone who is primarily notable for being involved in porn, we'd be doing what happens in every other area, specific criteria or not, and using the most obviously relevant sources for the subject. Any article on any subject that doesn't have a subject-specific guideline and has to be assessed via WP:GNG is probably going to heavily feature sources generally focused on that subject. Porn is not different because you'd like it to be. As Notability says, "Subject-specific notability guidelines... may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas": if you deprecate the subject-specific information on how to make those decisions, it just means that one goes back to general guidelines. What you clearly want is a guideline that specifically excludes consideration of the factors that used to constitute WP:PORNBIO in making decisions about notability, but that's not in any sense what that RfC asked, was argued, or was closed as. If you want that, then I'm afraid you'd better get writing and get a new RfC underway. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You may carry on in your mistaken understandiing that porn-related persons possess inherent notability by being, for example, prominent porn actors. And that using porn-related sources is all it takes to keep them up. That is your prerogative. What you cannot do is make personal judgements about your fellow editors, as you have done throughout the discussion (e.g. "porn is not different because you'd like it to be"). You are kindly requested to adhere to WP:AGF. Mistakes are free and all-you-can-eat; boorishness is a no no. -The Gnome (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You still seem to be confused about the difference between inherent notability and notability: she can't be inherently notable as there's now no subject-specific guideline, but her prominence certainly is a factor in considering general notability, as it is for anyone else. (The reason many of these AfDs are succeeding with minimal if any opposition is because WP:PORNBIO led to a ton of articles on people who just weren't prominent enough to pass WP:GNG.) But let's take a step back: please point me to the specific wording in an existent Wikipedia guideline that supports the interpretation that porn-related sources or claims to notability are irrelevant for consideration under the WP:GNG. You can't do that. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - Notability has already been established by the GA process. has proved that claims that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR are unfounded. Another vexatious AfD from the anti-porn brigade. --John B123 (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Claiming ulterior motives behind the AfD process amounts to a serious violation of our obligation to assume good faith and a personal attack. Let's focus on the discussion and leave home the unnecessary roughness. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think I have violated guidelines take to to the appropriate Administrators Noticeboard, if not don't throw mud to try and discredit opposition to the nomination. --John B123 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, John B123, I do think you are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines by throwing around accusations of conspiracy but I won't bother with ANI. If you think your behavior is good in this exchange, carry on. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Let me reveal this: When the criteria change things get changed! If tomorrow, for example, the consenus is that hockey players are not notable as such and they have to satisfy some other, general criteria, we would see a tsunami hiting the articles of hockey players. It's important to underatand this!
 * And that would happen NOT because some editors have an "anti-hockey" agenda or whatever, but because when the criteria change, Wikipedia changes! The deprecation of WP:PORNBIO denies porn related subjects the Wikinotability it previously afforded them. It is normal (nay, it is to be expected) that porn related articles will start getting deleted. So, please, let's all try to get along, without any aggravation. AfDs are enough work as it is. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting, but the simple fact is that the anti-porn brigade started to AfD these article before WP:PORNBIO was depreciated, and in fact the same editors were the front runners in PORNBIO being depreciated. --John B123 (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Gnome fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia notability policy re: subject-specific guidelines" The deprecation of WP:PORNBIO does not "[deny] porn-rleated subjects the Wikinotability it previously afforded them" in any sense whatsoever. It denies them the inherent notability it previously afforded them, which is a completely different thing. Since nobody arguing to keep the article is relying on the deprecated inherent notability arguments bu, we need sources;t rather going back to general notability guidelines, The Gnome's comment isn't relevant to this AfD at all. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually misunderstand precisely nothing, The Drover&#39;s Wife, since what you're saying is what I just said. The deprecation of WP:PORNBIO indeed dEnies porn-related persons the inherent notabilty it previously afforded them, as you put it - or the (inherent) Wikinotablity it previously afforded them. And, I extend the rationalization, therefore, we have to assess those persons' notability by other, specific criteria, i.e. WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, and do on. (What has changed via the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO abt sources & awards I explain further below, in response to another remark you made.) -The Gnome (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE aren't relevant to porn performers, so, as with many areas, we've got to rely on the WP:GNG. The deprecation of WP:PORNBIO said absolutely nothing about sources: any question of sources wasn't put in the RfC, wasn't discussed in any significance during the RfC, and there was no mention of it in the closer's remarks about the RfC. The attempt to stretch the very clear and unarguable outcome of that RfC to that desired outcome is trying to take two and two and argue that you've got twenty-seven. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clear that you do not understand the consequences of having WP:PORNBIO deprecated and particulary the relevance of what it contained that has now been stricken off. Continue to believe that we can treat porn-related subjects as if WP:PORNBIO is still with us. There has never been an argument from my part as to WP:GNG, since this is the set of criteria to which the notability claim of porn related persons has gravitated. You may .continue to use porn-related sources, porn awards, and the like, to establish WP:GNG notability. Do so and see how far this gets you. -The Gnome (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no clearer way to say this: deprecating a subject-specific guideline does not mean that anything that was previously referred to in that guideline is explicitly excluded from any consideration regarding notability. You need to actually amend the guidelines to say that, and that requires an RfC of itself. It doesn't happen because you wish really hard. You could actually propose this, or you could repeat the extent to which you've misunderstood how subject-specific guidelines work on failed AfD after failed AfD when notable people get nominated and your entire argument is based on imaginary guidelines. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not know about this alleged anti-porn conspiracy in Wikipedia (and, frankly, this sounds a bit ludicrous). What is certain is that even is such an "anti-porn" crusade was underway before the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO, each case would have been assessed, as I'm sure it was, through taking WP:PORNBIO into account. Now, not any more. Quite simple, really. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is true that the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO means that some porn related articles will get deleted. However, that does not mean that every porn related article nominated for deletion will get deleted. Looking at WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, in the last month there were about 30 articles about people involved in porn that were deleted, with 7 Keeps. There are currently 9 active deletion debates about people involved in porn, and this is the only one that's facing significant opposition, probably because of the Good Article status. I agree that getting along without aggravation is a worthwhile goal; the easiest way to achieve that might be to let this particular article stand, and be content with the 30-40 articles that are or will soon be deleted. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Toughpigs. The AfD process is not an invitation for trade. If one article must go, it must go. If one hundred articlesmust go, they must go. There is no room for error here, i.e. no room for "pet projects", "sentimental attachments", or simple personal preferences. If the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO means that one thousand articles must go, because they nolonger meet the current, post-deprecation criteria, then they must go. It's truly very simple, as simple as it can get. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Gnome, whether one, a hundred or a thousand articles "must go" is not up to one person to decide; it's decided case by case in these discussions. I think your passion for a clean sweep in this subject area is weakening your case for this individual discussion. If it truly is "very simple", then why do you have to work this hard to accomplish your goal? -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about one person deciding the fate of articles? Who said anything about actually deleting hundreds of articles? Who said anything about "sweeps", clean or not so clean? Certainly not me. AfDs are decided by editors' consensus. The possibility of many ("hundreds") of articles getgting deleted arises every time such a drastic change in criteria happens, but possibility does not mean certainty. Each AfD should be examined on its own merits.
 * All I'm doing, Toughpigs, is elaborating on the new status of criteria for porn-related subjects (persons, in particular). The change itself is very simple. The resistance to the change is not, which is understandable since there has obviously been a lot of work in creating and maintaining many of the affected articles. At the end of the day, all that I'm "passionate" about is having the extant criteria applied. Which, again, is as simple as it gets. Mistaking this for some kind of "anti-porn" agenda is a serious error, though it is your privilege. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The fact that the article is GA is not material to notability. In any case, the article was promoted in 2008 when the standards were much more lax. For example, most citatitions are from promotional industry publications (WP:SPIP), non RS web sites, IMDB, and so on. Arguments such as WP:INTERESTING are not helpful in deletion discussions. The annual listicles from a CNBC journalist (?) do not provide significant coverage for the subject: []. I'm not seeing notability here under WP:BIO / WP:ENT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets GNG as demostrated above. This is getting ridiculous. I cannot believe this was even considered. It is impossible to fully tell the history of the porn in internet age without giving significant attention to Haze. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Coffeeandcrumbs. Could you please provide verifiable evidence that our subject is so important that she meets Wikipedia's notability criteria? As always, I'm willing to change my mind when the facts change! -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete If the best source I can find is a tabloid journalism piece explaining her association with Tiffany Trump, then that's just not good enough - WP:BLPSOURCES takes priority. Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's more than enough here to pass GNG. A couple of editors seem to be taking a position of "excluding sources discussing what she's notable for, she doesn't pass WP:GNG" which is not how that works. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, The Drover&#39;s Wife. Please note that sources demonstrating notability in the porn business no longer qualify as supportive of notability, not after WP:PORNBIO has been conclusively deprecated. This is why all the (numerous) sources showing that our subject is a well known member of the porn industry are excluded from the evidence; not for any other reason. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a mischaracterization. The only thing that deprecation of PORNBIO indicates is that the awards do not count for notability. If you want to deprecate the AVN as an unreliable source for porn subjects, that consensus needs to be established at WP:RSN. As of now AVN as a source counts toward GNG. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As Coffeeandcrumbs says, that's completely untrue. Deprecating a subject-specific notability guideline means that there is no longer a pathway to automatic, inherent notability for articles within that subject and articles within it then are assessed according to WP:GNG; it does not mean that articles within that subject are assumed to be non-notable unless they also have notability in another subject. There is no basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline or even reasoned WP:IAR argument about that one, just a couple of people with very strong opinions getting overly hopeful. As I said originally, that's just not how this works. It's also a position that's going to harm your case sooner or later: I'm someone who thinks we had way too many articles on people in porn for many reasons and would have supported the deprecation of PORNBIO if I'd seen it, but if the same couple of people keep going after actually-notable people on this obviously-incorrect misconception of the deletion process it's likely going to inspire a move to replace it with something instead of just using GNG. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll state again that a person in the porn industry needs to meet the criteria to which WP:PORNBIO redirects us - nothing more and nothing less. A person who has worked exclusively within the porn industry need not possess Wikinotability elsewhere to have an article about that subject merit an inclusion. That's as clear as it can get! We should be having very easy discussions about the porn-related subjects put through the AfD process but insread we get arguments about this or that porn award. Well, when a criterion is stricken off, The Drover&#39;s Wife, the text that we deprecate is significant in helping us understand what precisely has changhed. Here's the relevant text of WP:PORNBIO, as it once stood: [The subject must have:] won a well-known award such as an AVN Award; received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or been a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN, the XRCO or equivalent. All that is now gone. -The Gnome (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The RFC that deprecated WP:PORNBIO said nothing about any claim that those it applied to would instead have to meet WP:NACTOR: the vast majority of people arguing for its deprecation didn't make that argument, accordingly, the closer said nothing whatsoever that would support that claim. The redirect was made as later as a WP:BOLD move by some random user after a brief discussion had resolved to do something else entirely with the redirect and has no basis in policy, guideline or even any past discussion whatsoever, so no, these articles do not need to meet the criteria to which WP:PORNBIO redirects.
 * Again, WP:PORNBIO deprecated the notion that the criteria you listed were grounds for inherent notability - that is, grounds for an automatic keep regardless of sourcing. It did not, in any sense, mean that they are irrelevant to notability - it just means that they need to be considered on the same basis as every other claim to notability that isn't specifically prescribed (either as inherently notable or as definitively not relevant to notability) under a subject-specific guideline (which includes a huge proportion of Wikipedia biographies). Again, on both counts this demonstrates some fundamental misunderstandings about how Wikipedia notability guidelines work: people might well disagree on sources, but your arguments here are based on a belief that is objectively wrong. In short, what you're advocating would require a completely different and likely much more contentious RfC to actually change guidelines to incorporate that belief; there's no basis whatsoever for it in current guidelines. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, porn-award-rendered notability has been defenestrated. With WP:PORNBIO in place, porn awards were assigning to a person notability; after its demise, they do not. As to the deprecation RfC saying nothing about persons now having to meet WP:NACTOR, etc, hitting the link to WP:PORNBIO now, see where it takes you.
 * But do carry on arguing that only the automatic keep of porn-related persons has ben lost and that AVN (for example) render notability. The whole thing is getting absurd. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the specific wording in a Wikipedia guideline that supports the interpretation that porn-related sources or claims to notability are irrelevant for consideration under the WP:GNG. You can't, because it wasn't the subject of the RfC, few if any people argued it and the closer's comments didn't refer to it whatsoever. WP:PORNBIO now takes you to the page the discussion at the time actually agreed on, which was simply a page explaining that it had been deprecated and pointing people to the discussion. As for needing to meet WP:NACTOR: you cannot simply make up stuff because you think it's convenient when both the RfC discussion and the closer's remarks are clearly available to anyone wants to read them. Again, few people raised the issue, the unambiguous close notes accordingly provide absolutely no basis for that interpretation, and the only discussion that's ever been had about the shortcut did not support even the technical matter of redirecting it there let alone making any conclusions about requiring meeting WP:NACTOR. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * look at the project porn list of deletion discussions towards t he top of this discuss ion and look the discussions relati ng to the red links and you will cle arly see your argument has absolutely no.basis in what we actually do. Spartaz Humbug! 19:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're suggesting or even who you're responding to. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 *  Delete Keep Changed my mind after seeing the evidence presented. Looks like I'll have another project! Great work. Missvain (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "I couldn't find any really good, solid material about her that would make me convinced she's notable, outside of making a video for a rock band and staring in pornographic films" You are making a WP:VALINFO or WP:NOTVALUABLE argument. You and I may not think what the sources are covering is important, but the point is they do. There are three academic journal articles that provide criticism of her scenes. They could have chosen any scene, but they chose hers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, cool! If that is significant coverage (I could not access the journals) then right on. Trust me, I'm the *last* person who wants to see women who should have Wikipedia articles deleted. I also edited my comment, I do not want to be ever belittle sex work, to reflect that she has been in many pornographic films, but perhaps many have not been significantly covered in reliable secondary sources. I'd be delighted to see the article kept, I just struggled to find anything I considered significant. Thanks for your contributions! Missvain (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Minor thing, but re: - per WP:REDACT better the strike rather than replace if anyone has responded/time has gone by (keeping context for other people's comments). &mdash;  Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * On the fence see below - It's a difficult one. I started with a typical search, then looked into the academic sources linked above. I can only access two of the three, but neither of them are significant coverage of Haze. They talk about particular films she's in and mention her only insofar as to refer to what her character does without saying anything of substance about Haze herself. That contributes to the notability of those films, but doesn't do much for Haze herself. The other part of the equation here is more interesting, and that's what to do with someone who has received a lot of coverage/recognition within an industry, but largely limited to that industry. We have mainstream sources making claims about her being particularly popular/successful, but they take the form of listicles and go into very little detail about why she's popular/successful beyond listing industry awards. We need significant coverage in reliable sources. That it's a GA doesn't matter. The GA review is 12 years old, when many of our policies and guidelines were interpreted differently, especially notability. It's not a free pass to further scrutiny. I'm probably coming down on weak delete, but will sit on the fence to see if anyone can dig up significant coverage from a reliable source (not an item in a listicle, not claims about numbers of videos/awards -- in depth coverage in a good source). &mdash;  Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Updating per the sources Aircorn dug up. They're not all great, but there's enough across all these sources to meet GNG. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Note to closer. Notability is not a requirement of a Good Article. Have no opinion on the merits of keeping or delisting. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree there, from Featured article criteria: . Notability is one of the "policies regarding content". --John B123 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have much to do with Featured content so won't speak for them. I am however very involved in the GA process (that's how I saw this AFD) and we do not assess notability when reviewing. A non-notable subject is unlikely to meet the broad requirement, but it does happen. Being a good article does not prevent it from being merged, deleted, redirected or undergoing other major changes anymore than any other article here. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Did some more...ahem research... and there is enough references out there. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: found sources, but they need to be analyzed to prevent this WP:GA from being deleted, so a second relist is needed.
 * Keep per WP:GNG based on sources found by others in this discussion. TJMSmith (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 18:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep a few editors did some work here and discovered that the person has some notability. I initially rejected the article based on Pornbio. Wm335td (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.