Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Rose


 * 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. Alright, this one is complex and I expect it won't reach unanimous agreement (both on the discussion and my closure of it), so I shall make a few points garnered from the discussion: Regards, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that the article does not meet WP:GNG - and no, as pointed out press releases typically don't count towards that for the most part.
 * The main argument is whether the XRCO Awards are a well-known and significant industry award for the purpose of WP:PORNBIO - a separate discussion is going on on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) about that section, so the whole guideline appears to be in flux right now but leaning towards stricter standards. There does not seem to be a question about whether these awards were indeed given. I see some other awards are discussed on the article but very little (and a little ambiguous) discussion on them.
 * On the question whether the XRCO awards satisfy the PORNBIO criterion, most of the arguments in that regard are just assertions, or citing precedent in other AfDs in favour of keeping (some other AfDs were apparently "delete" though, as well), whether niche is a pro or a con for counting them in, or prior discussion (mostly unlinked to) on WT:BIO as against, or but the numerical preponderance is on the side of the "no" camp. Also, Steve Quinn and in lesser measure others have laid out arguments that the awards are not significant enough, with not much detailed disagreement.
 * Finally and perhaps most importantly, arguably meeting the PORNBIO criteria is not by default a "is notable"/keep reason, as said on WP:BIO, something also emphasized by a number of delete !voters who also noted relevant statements such as WP:NRVE and WP:WHYN, statements that have not been disagreed with, which is especially concerning on a WP:BLP about a sensitive subject matter.

Kristina Rose

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In an industry that creates and promogates awards all over the place, nothing about Rose and her list of awards seems notable John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The references are a bunch of porn industry press releases about a bunch of industry backscratching awards. I think that reasonable people can conclude that a "superslut" award given out at an adult nightclub is not comparable to a Nobel or Pulitzer prize, or an Academy Award or Golden Globe. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. As she won two individual XRCO Awards (XRCO which are notable and not obscure) in separate years, which is properly sourced, she meets the notability criteria from WP:PORNBIO. -- fdewaele, 5 August 2016, 14:45 CET.
 * Comment. The XRCO Award may not be the Golden Globes, but Wikipedia's notability guidelines don't require iconic or superlative status. The individual XRCO wins satisfy the letter of WP:PORNBIO. Niche categories like "Unsung Siren" and "Superslut" have been disputed though. However, the working consensus at recent AfDs has been that such performers satisfy the guideline and are likely notable. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- despite the awards, the subject fails WP:GNG as significant RS coverage on the subject cannot be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per K.e.coffman. No significant coverage, just being on a list of minor awards doesn't cut it.   Montanabw (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - she won two individual XRCO Awards, she meets the notability criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical -man   talk  (en-2)  01:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The PORNBIO standard requires a "well-known" and "significant" award, which is a higher standard than an "individual" award. This !vote misrepresents the applicable guideline and should therefore be disregarded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, The XRCO-awards are considered to be "well-known" and "significant", thus negating your comment. It's not necessary that every single prize in these awards is highly notable as well. In fact, if that was true, even a case could be made against various technical Oscar awards. -- fdewaele, 7 August 2016, 14:45 CET.
 * Reply. Your argument contradicts a solid, long-established consensus hammered out in the discussions which led to the last significant revisions of PORNBIO. @Morbidthoughts probably stated it most clearly: PORNBIO requires the award to be both "well known and significant". The debates or contention in AFDs/DRVs like Deauxma and Elexis Monroe have been whether their nominations are significant enough to satisfy PORNBIO simply because they are performer awards. No, they are not and consensus had made clear when we last edited PORNBIO that the category is important in determining significance.. The discussions were extensive and bear careful reading (even MT's comments are only excerpted here). Other AFD discussions have concluded with deletion of performer bios where the performer had won awards that would meet your standard. In addition, Notability (people), which PORNBIO is a component of, states clearly that "Failure to meet these criteria [SNGs like PORNBIO] 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", and it is very common, under many SNGs, for lack of substantial coverage to override an arguable, technical SNG pass. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.   (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO with her XRCO Awards for Superslut and Orgasmic Analist, which are well-known/significant industry awards that aren't scene-related/ensemble categories. We have very recent consensus to support the inclusion of the XRCO Superslut award in PORNBIO. Orgasmic Analist is also a legitimate award for a porn industry awards show. The whole point of porn awards is to reward performances in porn films. Anal sex is a popular porn category, so it makes sense for a porn awards show to give an award to a performer they perceived to be the best in the genre that year. Mocking the names of these categories is not a legitimate reason at all to attempt to degrade their value under PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment that was indeed the precedent I was referring to and which negates BBW's comment/reply. The award has been deemed to be relevant and notable enough in the recent past, although I'm not entirely certain that was the ultimate selling point for keeping that particular article vis-à-vis other media notability, so there is no reason to now have a different outcome. -- fdewaele, 8 August 2016, 10:08 CET.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. A single discussion, anomalous with the broad sweep of discussions weighing lack of GNG-sufficient coverage against a arguable, narrow, technical SNG pass can hardly bind future community decisions. Montanabw sums up the case for deletion effectively. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I believe the XRCO Awards are well known and significant. But just as there is an Oscar for Best Actress and an Oscar for Best Original Story, we need to differentiate between the winner of the XRCO Award for Best Actress and the XRCO Award for Superslut of the Year. One helps the winner pass PORNBIO, and the other gets her polite applause. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The XRCO Awards are "a well-known" adult film "industry award" ceremony, but their specific award categories "Superslut of the Year" & "Orgasmic Analist" are basically niche awards categories that likely do not rise to the level of a "significant" award category. Also, the Ariana Jollee article basically passed GNG, which is apparently why it was kept recently. Guy1890 (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , the vast majority of keep voters at Articles for deletion/Ariana Jollee specifically cited her XRCO Superslut wins as one of the reasons why it meets our notability guidelines:
 * Me: "Clearly passes WP:PORNBIO#1 ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award"). PORNBIO only excludes scene-related and ensemble categories. Superslut is not scene-related/ensemble."
 * Morbidthoughts: "I believe she passes PORNBIO not just because of her awards"
 * Wikiuser20102011: "While one might find the name of the awards she won distasteful (and I somewhat agree), it is an individual body of work award and has been given out for long enough to be considered well-known."
 * Subtropical-man: "meet of WP:PORNBIO"
 * SamWinchester000: "Also her serious, personal XRCO Awards are of course no fun-awards just because of their namings. Neither are they promotional as they are giving out the only independent porn critics' awards in the US. XRCO is using some figurative, let's call it, "poetic" namings for their categories like "Unsung Swordsman", "New Stud", "Orgasmic Oralist" or "Superslut". And when reading a bit into the above book sources (that moreover state her to be one of the first well known gonzo performers) one will understand why she has been awarded as Superslut: because it's perfectely hitting the truth."
 * Rebbing: "Her two Superslut of the Year awards—while apparently drawing the ire of some—meet PORNBIO point 1."
 * MichaelQSchmidt: "per meeting WP:PORNBIO through awards notable and significant"
 * There was only one keep vote in the entire AfD (by TM) which cited GNG and not PORNBIO/awards. Also, niche awards aren't excluded from PORNBIO, in fact, PORNBIO#2 reinforces their inclusion into the guideline ("Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre"). Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The Ivotes in that prior AfD have no bearing on the, (WP:BIO), notability of this subject, and no bearing on this AfD. This is pretty much an end around action to try to add off-topic information and stack more Ivotes in this AfD than really exist. It is not appropriate. And, this comment should be ignored.
 * Notability is a standard reached by adhering to guidelines and policies, the core of which is the WP:GNG and expands to WP:BASIC which states:
 * "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject"
 * "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability".
 * Based on this, the significance of the above mentioned awards have been over-inlfated in this AfD. First the cited sources, mentioning the subject, for the awards are not independent coverage - they are covered in the outlet published by the organization that gives out the awards, and an in industry trade publication (a vested interest) , . This means the garnering of these awards is not covered substantially in independent reliable sources WP:RS.
 * At best it can be said these awards exist; but that is not an indication of notability (these are just industry press announcements). Also, it seems verifiablity is based on finding independent sources that corroborate existence; so these sources seem questionable in that regard. Ignoring fundamental notability criteria does not work. The two sentences that comprise WP:PORNBIO do not exclusively determine notability; that is why the page is WP:BIO and not WP:PORNBIO. And that is why WP:GNG is referred to. PORNBIO does not supersede WP:GNG and WP:BASIC and is very much contingent on these as stated in the above on that page. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on what I wrote above, my Ivote is Delete---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Superslut my arse - no aposit there is an analist of the year award too. Doesn't change the fact that this claim to notability is a massive pile of bollocks. (superslutty bollocks of analist bollocks or not) Spartaz Humbug! 13:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a lot of rambling but not even an argument. -- fdewaele, 18 August 2016, 16:47 CET.
 * It is in fact quite an effective argument. I believe what is being said is that these are very minor awards and, at the same time, the above claims to notability are misguided and perhaps misleading.---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment there is a related AfD currently ongoing here: . This is the fourth AfD nomination which includes two deletes. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The idea that one can't verify that a subject has or has not won a particular award by using a citation from the awarding organization is silly nonsense that has no bearing on this or any other AfD. Who would know better who won a particular award than the organization that gave out that award in the first place? There is also no blanket prohibition on using press releases as sources in Wikipedia articles, especially for non-controversial information. Guy1890 (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The subject is not significantly covered by third party and independent reliable sources - see WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and see other SNG main pages. Press releases may be fine for informational purposes after notability of the subject has been demonstrated or established. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Press releases do not indicate notability because they are not independent of the subject, are not objective due to commercial interests, they are promotional, and do not show the subject has gained significant independent recognition or coverage and so on per WP:NRV. And this is a common theme across notability guidelines per WP:NRV. This is how we write an encyclopedia. I can't see how notability can be claimed only via one or more press releases (with virtually no other sources). And the template doesn't mean anything other than it is a template - there are a bunch of those at Citation templates. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, as an aside, this subject is controversial as demonstrated by this AfD ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that a person has won an award is not a controversial piece of information. Whether one thinks that winning a particular award denotes that a particular person is notable is obviously in the eye of the beholder - our long-developed set of many Wikipedia SNGs either mean something or they don't...opinions certainly vary on that topic. This particular subject's notability is "controversial" as is evidenced by this AFD here. Guy1890 (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What I see, what appears to be happening, with your most recent comment, is the SNG, "PORNBIO", is being taken out of context. Wikipedia is consistent - notability has not been established for this subject. You might be interested in the WP:WHYN (a WP:N section entitled "Why we have these requirements"). PORNBIO does not rewrite policies and guidelines. As noted above - and it seems worth repeating - "Notability (people), which PORNBIO is a component of, states clearly that 'Failure to meet these criteria [SNGs like PORNBIO] 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', and it is very common, under many SNGs, for lack of substantial coverage to override an arguable, technical SNG pass".


 * Keep. Seriously? And a lot of the "delete" rationales acknowledge that she won awards, so I don't know if it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:IAR, but neither fly.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 23:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For me it is not IDON'TLIKEIT and it is not IAR. It is Wikipedia standards contained in guidelines and policies. The award itself "Kristina Rose (Superslut)" is a niche award of the XRCO Award pantheon. Here are the listings . This superslut award is meaningless compared to other larger categories such as "three XRCO Awards for 'Elegant Angel'  productions, including Best Release, Best Gonzo Movie, and Best Gonzo Series". Then there is "director William H. was named Best Director" (for whatever). This is followed by "Tori Black...won her second straight Female Performer of the Year, while Manuel Ferrara was named Male Performer of the Year while also being inducted into the XRCO Hall of Fame. These are awards that make sense - these are large scale awards. The niche award Superslut hardly compares with these. Also, see comment below: Steve Quinn (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment PORNBIO states that it is being inducted into the the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. It doesn't simply say XRCO award.
 * It does say if the person won a "well-known and significant industry award" - which this person has not. If it was Female performer of the Year or Best Director or something like that I can see trying to claim some sort of notability - but far down the list "Superslut" is merely an accolade. Also, PORNBIO says "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration".  And only press releases for references is still an issue. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * When talking about there supposedly not being any independent sources in the article, I think you're making a mistake that a lot of "delete" !voters seem to make when it comes to adult film actors. As I stated here, the subject of Kristina Rose's article is Kristina Rose, not pornography (pornography is a category). If porn is what she is primarily known for, why wouldn't there be a lot of sources from pornography-related publications? That would be like Britney Spears' article not having any music-related sources.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 09:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's quite the straw man you're trotting out yet again. The real issue isn't sourcing to "pornography-related publications". It's sourcing to press releases and "articles" that are barely retouched PR copy posted by trade magazines on behalf of their advertisers. It's a very straightforward matter. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And how many publications do you know of whose articles are retouched after they are initially published?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 09:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As you well know, that's not at all relevant. Making cosmetic changes to press releases and PR copying and labeling the result an "article" doesn't create reliable sourcing as defined/described in WP:RS. Lipstick on the pig and all that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First you said the sources haven't been touched, but now you say they have been; which is it? Anyway, the original question you ask is what isn't relevant, so let's move on.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 09:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I said nothing of the sort, nor did I ask a question. You are deliberately misrepresenting my statements (and those of other editors) because you cannot refute the argument that the article fails basic requirements for inclusion because it lacks reliable independent sourcing. Your behavior is dishonest and disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yawn...the he's-disruptive-because-he-doesn't-agree-with-me argument again.... You might as well continue battling with yourself.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 22:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - automatically notable under WP:PORNBIO for winning the XRCO awards. Anti-porn votes are certainly present here, and it seems their votes hinge on the argument that XRCO "aren't significant". They are, of course; they're second only to the AVN awards, and as such, Rose is notable enough for an article. ArchieOof (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as "automatic" notability in this context. WP:PEOPLE, which WP:PORNBIO is a part of, says so, flat out, plain as day. There was consensus just this month to delete articles who won prominent awards in downlevel categories, because those categories fell short of the PORNBIO significance standard and little or no RS coverage of the article subject existed. Examples go back for years, under the current version of PORNBIO and even under less rigorous, older versions. Grammy Awards are much more well-known and much more significant than porn industry awards, but some winners in less prominent categories -- eg, album notes, arrangements -- aren't seen as notable. Independent, reliable source coverage matters. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even accepting that the subject meets PORNBIO, per, that "does not guarantee that a subject should be included." As the available coverage does not come anywhere near that required by BASIC or GNG, and keeping in mind the "additional criteria" disclaimer and the reasons for the notability requirement, this article should not be retained. To save us all some time: This is not an IAR vote; it's predicated on the plain text and manifest intent of N and BIO, especially WHYN and WP:NRVE. I also have no moral objections to pornography; and, as a feminist concerned about the gender gap in Wikipedia's coverage, I would prefer to see more, not fewer, articles about women, no matter their subjects' occupations. Rebb  ing  12:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Rebecca1990 Pwolit iets (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. the awards are apparently considered  trivial niche awards, in an industry that apparently makes sure that every conceivably justifiable performer gets at least one.  In all fields we have the practice of deciding which awards show notability, and I think it;s welllestablished that such awards as these do not. (but fwiw, the website of the awarding organization is a sufficiently reliable source that the awards were in fact awarded--we routinely use sources like that for all sorts of awards).  DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 27 August 2016 (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.