Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessa Rhodes


 * 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. There is a clear consensus here that the mere presence of a few nominations for industry-internal "awards" for a single work, in the absence of any non-trivial independent biographical coverage beyond that, is not sufficient grounds for notability. The current wording of WP:PORNBIO, known to be heavily disputed on this exact point, cannot be cited as compulsory grounds for overriding this strong local consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Jessa Rhodes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD declined. Appears to fail WP:PORNBIO. Subject has been nominated for two awards but has not won any awards. Without any awards and only two nominations, this does not pass the porn guidelines. Safiel (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. First of all, two nominations are sufficient for the subject to pass both WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO, here's an AfD for Celeste Star, proving that it is. At the time of that AfD, Star only had two performer award nominations and the result of that AfD was a unanimous keep vote. Secondly, Rhodes has been nominated for three well known and significant awards, not two. She has been nominated for two "Best New Starlet" awards, which consensus has established as significant awards according to this discussion. I would also like to point out that one of those awards is the highly prestigious AVN Best New Starlet Award. Rhodes's "Best Supporting Actress" nomination has also been established as significant in at least two AfD's: One for Capri Anderson, and coincidentally, Celeste Star's AfD as well. The keep vote in both of those AfD's was unanimous by the way. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to comment on this just yet (I'll have another look into the awards and sources) but I have to take issue with your suggestion that the discussion you link to demonstrates "consensus has established [those awards] as significant awards". Rather, the consensus was that they shouldn't be automatically excluded. That does not automatically make the reverse true - they are not automatically then considered "significant". That consensus (such as it is) established that they should not be excluded, nothing more. Don't over-read the result. Stalwart 111  10:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PORNBIO states that an adult film actor must have "won a well-known and significant industry award, or have been nominated for such an award several times". This discussion took place on the talk page for WP:Notability (people) and the purpose of it was to determine which awards were "well-known and significant" and which ones weren't. Basically, that discussion determined that newcomer awards should not be excluded from PORNBIO because they are indeed well known and significant as required by this guideline. The statement I made above was correct and not a misinterpretation of the discussions outcome. Rebecca1990 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Like hell. As one of the editors who participated extensively in that discussion, it was quite clear that the purpose of that discussion was not to resolve all questions of which awards passed the well-known/significant standard, but to settle the question for a small number of specific classes of awards and establish a framework for consideration of awards in general in future deletion discussions. Consensus was pretty well established for the point that no award category and no awarding organization's awards were deemed to pass the test across-the board. At the point where the discussion became intractable, there were two competing texts, one from Morbidthoughts, one from me, and both called for taking into account both the awarding organization and the award category. Your description of the outcome is simply a purposeful misrepresentation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, again, the discuss seems fairly clearly to have dealt with the question of whether certain things should be excluded. Automatically listing those things as inclusion criteria is a ways off. It's definitely an overreach. HW seems inclined to think it was intentional. I don't know enough of the history to make that call but continuing to misinterpret that discussion will likely be seen as deliberate, even by those who are uninvolved. Stalwart 111  02:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Even stronger delete. Non-bio. Nonnotable award, issued for several dozen per year and God only knows how many are nominated and for what. - Altenmann >t 07:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks significant RS coverage. Fails PORNBIO. I disagree with Rebecca1990's assertion that the two Best New Starlet nominations are enough to pass the nominated several times test. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * She has THREE performer award nominations, not two. Two AVN Awards for Best New Starlet and Best Supporting Actress and an XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet. Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Aside from the points cogently made by the other delete !voters, I'd add that the purportedly qualifying nominations (AVN/XBIZ) all come from the same year/award cycle. The "multiple years" standard enjoyed consensus and was applied in dozens of deletion discussions without significant objection or opposition. It was removed from the guideline text without sufficient discussion, and the discussion over its removal never reached a resolution. Therefore, the pre-existing consensus should be applied, and the article deleted, because (aside from the other reasons given) the subject fails even the very low (and disputed if not deprecated) PORNBIO standard. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You said it yourself HW, the multiple years criteria is no longer a part of PORNBIO. How would you react to someone using your "the pre-existing consensus should be applied" argument to keep an article with only scene related and ensemble awards and nominations? Your argument opens the door for users to argue that articles of non-notable porn actors should be kept because of a previous guideline, do you not realize that? I'm pretty sure this isn't something you approve of. The past PORNBIO guideline is completly irrelevant. Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dead wrong, Rebecca. Per WP:GUIDELINE, "Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices." Changing the text of a guideline page without consensus is ineffective, and the alteration of the text does not change the practice, and should not be enforced or implemented.. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are several users in this discussion who argue that the PORNBIO guideline should be stricter, yet no one has brought up the multiple years criteria as something that should be reinstated. If consensus was really in favor of keeping that guideline than someone would have brought it up by now in that two month long discussion. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's argument above. Finnegas (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - A subject does not currently need to win any awards in order to meet the PORNBIO standard (which is merely currently "disputed" not "deprecated")...just being nominated (whether those nominations come over the course of one year or more) for "a well-known and significant industry award several times" is enough to meet that standard. The current, accepted dictionary definition of "several" at AfD is two. The AVN "Best New Starlet" award is a major award in the adult industry that can lead (but does not always lead) to more work & prestige in the adult film industry, and it is not issued to "several dozen (people) per year". The AVN "Best Supporting Actress" award is also obviously a major award.
 * I'm not quite sure what some of the word salady-type (for lack of a better phrase) commentary from around December 16th is supposed to be pointing out, but I really doubt that anyone can point to a previous Wikipedia discussion that shows definitively that the above awards are not major awards. The closing administrator's comments here ("It looks like there's a pretty good consensus for excluding scene awards and ensemble awards as criteria. New-comer awards are clearly consensus keep") are pretty informative as to how & why the PORNBIO standard was modified at the time in question. Obviously, not all awards (adult film-related or not) are considered to be "well-known and significant" under both the PORNBIO & ANYBIO standards.
 * One of the current proposed changes to PORNBIO is to consider only current nominations, as opposed to past nominations that did not yield an actual award, so I don't think that the "let's go back to an old standard that no longer exists that somehow justifies a 'delete' vote" is an argument that holds any water. There's no evidence that I'm aware of that justifies statements like: "The 'multiple years' standard enjoyed consensus and was applied in dozens of deletion discussions without significant objection or opposition. It was removed from the guideline text without sufficient discussion, and the discussion over its removal never reached a resolution." The PORNBIO standard has been changed many times over the years (and I think it will be changed for the better soon), and one needs consensus to go back to any old (or new) standard.
 * One thing that could be removed from the existing article that's in question here is the "tattle blog" citation, as it's likely non-reliable. It also doesn't add any needed information to the article IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Obvious Delete. I also agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's argument. This should be deleted. 67.189.103.214 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not believe that the nominations alone are enough to pass WP:ANYBIO as they are only nominations and the prestige of those awards are strongly in question. To further, I do not see a lot of coverage beyond run of the mill, that would suggest this individual could pass on those grounds. Mkdw talk 16:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I know this discussion has a lot more "delete" votes than "keep" votes, but I think it would be fair to relist the discussion. WP:RELIST states that if a discussion "seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it" and that is obviously the case here. All of the "delete" voters above are ignoring established guidelines on WP such as WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO, which the subject passes, and they are ignoring consensus determining that the subject's nominations are indeed well known and significant. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2013 (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.