Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jiz Lee


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 23:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Jiz Lee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't think the Feminist porn Award ( according to its wiki page organised by a adult store - The ceremony was originally conceived of and coordinated by former store manager Chanelle Gallant, and it has been organized by current store manager Alison Lee since 2008.) is sufficiently notable to overcome the lack of decent reliable sourcing. Fails PORNBIO (IMO) and GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 07:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - as much as I regret lending my support to an article about someone whose best achievement is winning a butt plug-shaped award, subject meets GNG., , , ,  —Мандичка YO 😜 09:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as above. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   14:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - until I see proof positive that a "butt plug-shaped award" qualifies as a "well-known and significant industry award", I must disagree with my distinguished colleagues. I do not think that the relatively high standards of WP:PORNBIO are met.--Rpclod (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Rpclod, meeting WP:GNG is way more significant in terms of notability than winning a Feminist Porn Award. Cavarrone 05:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

*Delete as obviously fails PORNBIO & GNG, As far as I know Winning a butt-plug shaped award isn't really notable. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources provided below - They're not perfect I'll admit but notability's there. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per Spartaz's sound argument and per WP:TNT. Wikimandia's keep, above, is well-reasoned, but there is no relevant content in the article and both the book and film discussed in those sources remain as yet unreleased. I believe it's a bad idea to maintain an inadequate, borderline promotional BLP with essentially no content relating to its subject's actual significance/potential notability. I'm also a bit leery about accepting notability based on a not-yet-published book by a not-yet-published author. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not extreme in this position by any means but i think it's ludicrous lesbian and gay pornography performers are being held to standards of not receiving any mainly heterosexual porn awards (xbiz/avn) (the awards that AVN/XBIZ do put queer performers in "All girl/girl" are regarded as minor). There is a bias there. GuzzyG (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's certainly a problem here, but it's with the ridiculous privileging of straight porn performers over virtually every other class of performers, gay or straight, and the acceptance of worthless credentials, tinfoil trophies, unreliable sources, and promotional editing. The solution to the problem of ratshit content in one narrow field is not to tolerate even more ratshit in other fields. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per obvious lack of WP:BEFORE by the nominator and per sources by User:Wikimandia (which are just a fraction of what is easily foundable via Google, and do not just cover her book and her film). Comments about the subject failing GNG (by nominator and by User:Davey2010 above) should be ignored as inaccurate (see WP:NRVE: "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable", and "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation"). Coverage about Lee dates back to 2009 as a minimum . I would also point that a pornographic actor/actress who is invited as lecturer and speaker in multiple prestigious academic institutions is beyond doubt notable (see also, , ). Let alone she is also widely cited in several academic essays about pornography (Google Scholar). I disagree about WP:TNT as we use it just for "hopelessly irreparable" articles where "the only solution is to blow it up and start over". TNT applies for unsurmountable problems, eg. copyright violations or no meaningful content, current case is at best a minor WP:UGLY case which just requires a bit of cleanup, improving the sourcing and some expansion. Deletion is not cleanup. Cavarrone  05:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * keep - she is the subject of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources satisfying notability per wikimandia. It is irrelevant to notability whether films and books discussed has never been released. The focus is on the actual published source and whether there is content to contribute to the article. These sources can expand the article. For example, the Out article features an autobiography excerpt that describes her start and relationship with Syd Blakovich. It describes her opinions on gender issues which relate to her work. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've never seen any evidence that the the Feminist Porn Awards have ever qualified as a "well-known or significant industry award". FYI, many of the above-mentioned (on July 19th & 21st) possible references have been added to the article in question here for possible inclusion at a later date. Guy1890 (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Jiz Lee is a prominent figure in the queer porn genre. They have written and contributed to numerous books and other publications in the genderqueer, feminist, and erotica arenas. Drewmike (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep there can't be any doubt that this person is notable, look at all the sources provided above, I suggest the anti-porn warriors take it easy every once in a while. Kraxler (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:PORNBIO is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to proving notability. Indeed it's a far from great guideline and frequently contested. Lee meets WP:GNG, a far more reliable and long-established standard that derives directly from Wikipedia policies WP:N and WP:V. Colapeninsula (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO by being the recipient of a well-known and significant industry award that is not a scene-related/ensemble category. The Feminist Porn Award has enough mainstream media coverage to pass WP:GNG (,, & ) and is therefore well-known/significant. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Rebecca", please stop disrupting AFD discussions by misrepresenting the relevant notability guideline. You know perfectly well that passing the GNG does not make an award "well-known" or "significant". The standard is intentionally set higher, both in PORNBIO and the more general ANYBIO. This was made quite clear in the extensive discussions on tightening up PORNBIO standards, and no one disputed that this language was intended to be more restrictive than the prior text, which indicated that notable awards were sufficient. There are scores of discussions which have resulted in deletion of recipients of notable awards, both under PORNBIO and other other criteria. You know better. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2015 (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.