Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades (4th nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is clearly established that the sources identified as supporting this article either lack sufficient depth or are from sources not considered reliable for our purposes. As noted in the discussion, Wikipedia has numerous articles on porn stars who do, in fact, meet our standards for sourcing. I have redirected the title to List of Penthouse Pets per WP:PRESERVE, and have edit-protected it against further recreation. BD2412 T 04:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Lana Rhoades
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural relist per Deletion review/Log/2020 June 17. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 03:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57  17:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have tried to fix this BLP up having come across it at the last DRV. Importantly, I have RS on the fact she was the most searched for pornstar in 2019 (#2 of WP:NACTOR), and her circa 250 films (#1 of WP:NACTOR).  Her awards could be #3 of WP:NACTOR.  Her RS is still not great imho, but she gets a very high volume of non-trivial coverage in general global media (per WP:BASIC#1).  Ultimately, I think the most downloaded pornstar  (345 million views) on the world's largest porn-site, is something that our readers would expect to find on Wikipedia. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't know if this means anything, but her Wikidata page registers 26 versions of her BLP on various Wikipedia language sites. Britishfinance (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a circular source. Several of the other language Wikipedia articles appear to be translations of one another.  It is likely they originated from an old version of the en.Wikipedia article.  They also cite the same low quality sources, especially adultfilmdatabase.com. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is that this could apply to all WP articles, and yet not many I have come across have been translated 25 times? Anyway, I hope this 4th re-incarnation of the BLP is a better effort than the last three. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable reference for its own content. Notability and verifiability come from external published sources that have good reputations for fact checking and are independent of the subject.  4th effort or 100th, if the references are low quality, notability is still not established. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have RS from The Daily Beast, and I also linked to a Playboy Plus interview (it is behind a paywall unfortunately). Both are Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The most viewed pornographic performer in 2019 (per the RS), is a "non-notable pornographic performer"? Britishfinance (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * While a "just not notable" !vote is not encouraged, being a porn site's most popular star is not a guarantee of notability. I'm not yet convinced of the reliability of the sources.  I see one deprecated source, Daily Star (UK), which is considered even less reliable than the WP:DAILYMAIL per WP:RSPS. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * She is the most downloaded actress on the largest porn site in the world – although non-standard, that is in itself a level of notability (WP:NACTOR#2 says Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.). Also, if you read the Talk Page, I only used the Daily Mail Daily Star source to verify a fact from a video she did (which I verified myself by watching the video); the Daily Mail RS is not needed for meeting GNG, which I think she meets under WP:BASIC#1 (high volume of non-trivial coverage). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Tabloids are low quality sources. Claims of significance that rely on them are dubious.  The Daily Mail, per the WP:RSPS guideline supplement, is not to be trusted as a reference for facts or as evidence of notability.  The Daily Star, one of the most disreputable tabloids in Britain, is even worse. Sheer Internet traffic and Google hits regarding porn are notoriously unreliable. Reliable sources tend to note the petabytes moved. Tabloids note the "superstars" that draw that traffic. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't use the Daily Mail (my mistake, and struck above). Apart from the Daily Star (per Talk Page), I don't have any tabloids in this article? Britishfinance (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability still not established. Number of views and downloads from a pornography website is not a reliable or measurable statistic, it cannot be independently verified. The intent of the "large fan base or cult following" criteria, it seems, is to catch edge cases such as impactful viral sensations, people with a large base outside of traditional media venues, etc... Trying to use data provided by pornhub, xhamster, etc...on which sex worker is allegedly more popular than another in a given time frame is problematic. Zaathras (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable pornographic performer. Not sure why we're back here for the 4th time, with her having the same notability in RS the last two times this was listed. The need for RS coverage required for pornographic performers has been reiterated in many AfDs and DRVs, especially Lana Rhoades's previous 3 AfDs and 3(?) DRVs, as well as a recent AfD of this performer, which is on a similar level of "popularity" as this one. I'll save restating the arguments in AfD #2, but they still apply.
 * Being popular doesn't (automatically) meet notability. WP:NACTOR has been raised many times for popular people, and AfD has not treat it as overriding criteria. If they don't have the RS to back their 'notability', they're deleted regardless. The same criteria is applied for YouTubers. We delete incredibly popular YouTubers for lack of coverage, which would otherwise "meet WP:NACTOR" (eg SSSniperWolf, also see this). If keep votes cannot supply the RS, we're in exactly the same position as AfD #2. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I see we are back to special pleading and vague handwaves to some non policy based argument. If the best source we have is a UK tabloid then we are clearly well into the territory of this being yet another porn BLP that doesn't get anywhere close to minimum sourcing levels. Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. My first time editing this BLP, but I have replaced a lot of the RS and given two policy-based arguments above (NACTOR and BASIC). Perhaps we are also in the zone of AfD !voters who just don't like BLPs of pornstars regardless of the policy-based arguments or RS provided. Britishfinance (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Casting aspersions against editors with whom one disagrees is probably not going to be a wise path to take. Policy-based reasons have been given for deletion as well, and the citations in the present version of the article...tabloids, passing mentions, a light blurb in Fox Sports.AU, ar not really adding up to a convincing picture of notability. Zaathras (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fox Sports, which is an RS, has a whole article on her. I could paste hundreds of such RS into this article, which would emphasize WP:BASIC#1 (anybody can confirm on Google). It is not unsurprising that the most downloaded pornstar on the world's largest pornsite has a lot of articles on her from RS around the world.  For example: Puerto Rico (El Imparcial), Portugal (Correio da Manhã), Spain (Marca), Hong Kong (Indonesia) (Suara), UK (PC Magazine), India, (Punjab Kesari), Russia, (Sputnik News), Finland (7 päivää), Ecuador (El Commercio), Mexico (El Debate), Turkey (Haberler.com), USA (Daily Beast), USA (The Morning After (Hulu)), Germany (Rheinische Post). I could list hundreds more articles of which she is the sole subject (i.e. non-trivial) from around the world.  That is WP:BASIC#1. Britishfinance (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A couple there are highlighted in red by my unreliable sources script. I can only speak for the English sources, none of those give rise to GNG here. PC Mag doesn't have significant coverage (it mentions her name once, as an example of an actress with many views on a porn site, it doesn't talk about her otherwise). The Daily Beast suggests a few sentences should be added to Pierre Woodman. insidestl.com doesn't look reliable at a glance, indeed, it doesn't have any discussions on WP:RSN and your article link for the source is to a TV show, so I'm not sure what's going on there.
 * As for FoxSports.au I hope we're not saying their gossip celebrity coverage is evidence of notability. I mean... surely the argument here isn't that Pornstar Lana Rhoades reveals football star slid into her Insta DMs is encyclopaedic? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The section of the Fox article you cite is basically the Page Six of Fox Sports Australia. Sputnik is literal Russian propaganda and cannot be used to source anything in this project. Most everything else appear to be Daily Mail-like booty shots with no substance or depth. You can't add up every namedrop and scant mention and add it up to notability. Zaathras (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not mentioned Fox in the above list? That ref is in the article, but if you are concerned about Fox, then here is the same story from News.com.au (also owned by NewsCorp, and an RS), with News.com.au. She is a pornstar, so her articles are not going to be about politics or quantum physics.  However, as anybody can prove to themselves, her global coverage (e.g. article about her in large daily newspapers, and not all tabloids), is very (very) high (per WP:BASIC#1). Britishfinance (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * One third of the The Daily Beast article is about her (it is not a few lines), and it is a WP:RS/P, I also linked to a Playboy Plus interview (it is behind a paywall unfortunately), another WP:RS/P. There are many sources above which are find RS (and they don't have to be in English for AfD), such as Germany (Rheinische Post), and Spain (Marca), and Puerto Rico (El Imparcial), and Portugal (Correio da Manhã).  However, in addition to the RS that support her GNG, the fact remains that she gets full articles in an extreme amount of RS around the world, which is WP:BASIC#1. Britishfinance (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When the only person arguing a position is making no headway with anyone, then it's time they asked themselves whether they might be wrong. Spartaz Humbug! 19:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You dismiss any talk of sources – even the WP:RS/P ones. I don’t think that is fair advice given the only participants so far are editors who !vote delete at almost all pornstar AfDs, and seem to have no intention of changing regardless how substantially the referencing on the BLP has changed? Britishfinance (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BASIC, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" is where this subject falls, actually. Zaathras (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * None of these articles are trivial mentions - she is the sole subject of almost all of them (per above). She is a pornstar so the articles are not about politics or quantum physics.  However, that is non-trivial coverage. She passes WP:BASIC#1 Britishfinance (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: sources offered in this AfD do not meet WP:BASIC. For example, The Daily Beast source is not about Rhoades but about the coercion in the adult film industry: "The Sexual Coercion Epidemic in Porn". Rhoades is quoted from her social media accounts; this is not a source about her, let alone in-depth. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep On top of Britishfinance's argument and sources, there are multiple articles on AVN that cover Rhoades in depth and describe her as the most popular pornographic actress in the world.   AVN is probably the most reliable source that you can use for information on the adult industry, described by The New York Times as "an industry magazine that is to pornographic films what the trade publication Billboard is to records". It has also been referenced in newspaper articles, books, and research studies on numerous occasions There are also several articles on XBIZ that cover her and back up her notability.   XBIZ is also one of the largest resources for information on the adult industry and has been used as a reference many times. Rhoades is also mentioned briefly in an article by the New York Daily News, where she is described as one of the top porn stars in the world. WP:RSPS classifies the New York Daily News as "generally reliable". Due to obscenity laws in the US, it is very unlikely that an article about a porn star would be published in something like CNN or The Washington Post. Therefore, these sources are not "low-quality" just because they aren't mainstream. These are some of the best sources that you can use for an article regarding the porn industry, and they meet all of the guidelines at WP:RELIABLE and WP:BLPSOURCES. These sources also contain enough information so that no original research would need to be conducted. Momo824 (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * someone needs to read the Wp:GNG & WP:RS more carefully. This is a BLP. Provide high quality reliable sources or this will be deleted again. Spartaz Humbug! 10:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to read WP:EMPTYASSERTION more carefully. Please explain why these aren't good sources. Momo824 (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * AVN and XBIZ aren't really accepted to show notability. And, as a sidenote, I believe that AVN's physical publication is better than their online stuff. If we did change to accepting AVN/XBIZ as sources for notability again, we'd end up with thousands of pornographic biographies again, which was seen as undesirable before. It's pretty hard to source information for them, due to their lack of coverage in RS, even if they did have an article. Whether due to obscenity laws or something else, it's not our fault they have to do something noteworthy aside from porno acting, or become established in their career for decades, to get actual RS coverage. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, where is your proof that "AVN and XBIZ aren't really accepted to show notability."? They meet all of the guidelines at WP:RELIABLE and WP:BLPSOURCES, and have already been referenced hundreds of times on Wikipedia. Also, your third sentence is simply an appeal to consequences. Accepting AVN/XBIZ as sources would not result in thousands of pornographic biographies because not every single person that these sources mention is automatically notable. But if the mentioned person is the most popular porn star in the world, then yes, they are notable. Lastly, in regards to your ending statements, I already explained why these sources are reliable, so please explain your view. Momo824 (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * AVN and XBIZ "articles" are essentially press releases, sources that are not independent of the subject are unacceptable, which knocks your list of source does to the NY Daily News. Within there is a single line, "The Top 10 was rounded out by Riley Reid, Lana Rhoades...". You do not appear to have added anything to this discussion, in terms of establishing notability of the subject. Zaathras (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? They are clearly news articles, not press releases, and they are definitely independent of the subject. Please stop making baseless claims and actually back them up (See: WP:EMPTYASSERTION). Momo824 (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are free to peruse hundreds of past cases at WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, where "articles" by AVN and XBIZ have been explicitly rejected by the community. Zaathras (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Several of the articles that were kept included AVN and XBIZ as sources. The ones that were deleted weren’t deleted simply because the sources were AVN and XBIZ. They were deleted because AVN and XBIZ did not provide any information that regarded them as notable. However, this is not the case here. These sources clearly provide evidence that shows the notability of Rhoades. The porn stars that had their articles deleted were random, non-notable pornstars, not the #1 pornstar in the world. Momo824 (talk)
 * That is not a truthful statement, many of these bio have had many editors try to use AVN and similar to establish notability, and ever since the subject-specific wp:pornBio was deleted, those arguments have been for naught. Porn is a closed, circular, self-referential industry of self-promotion, unverified claims for sales, "most downloaded or viewed" and so on. Despite a passing reference by a lone NYT writer 2 decades ago, it is not at all analogous to the Oscars. So what we are left with is yet another porn actress with mentions in bad sources and scant, mentions in otherwise reliable sources, which do not add up to supporting the notability of this individual. At the risk of further bludgeoning the discussion further, this shall me the last word. Zaathras (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, it is a truthful statement. Check out the following articles: Ramón Nomar, Markus Dupree, Shyla Stylez, J. D. Slater, Riley Reid, & Carlo Masi. Each of them have had recent AfD nominations that the community decided to keep and each of them rely heavily on references to AVN and XBIZ. These are just a few of the many examples. Come on man, don't just pull up WP:BLUDGEON in order to avoid a discussion in which I have provided several backed-up claims with references while you've simply refuted my claims without providing any references. Momo824 (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see this page and follow the links to discussion about deleted perforners. Once you have educated yourself and put forward a reality based argument we might take your ridiculous claims more seriously. Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I already looked at that page. That’s where I got the links to all of the articles that I listed in my previous comment. Did you look at them? Momo824 (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So apart from cherry picking cases that go the way you wanted, what did you learn from the discussions of the much larger set of articles with these "sources" that was deleted? Spartaz Humbug! 17:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the references listed above count as non-trivial coverage by a reliable sources independent of the subject. NYT is there only to prop up AVN as a reliable source.  The AVN references and all but one of the XBIZ references are press releases.  The remaining XBIZ article is in op-ed which only briefly mentions Rhodes.  NY Daily News article is about Stormy Daniels with only a brief mention of Rhodes. Finally, raw Google searches are of little value, especially when the hits are citations to porn trade press. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. In addition to my comments above, the only new fact considered since the 2nd nomination is the subject's popularity on one porn site. The sources that acknowledge its significance appear to be tabloids.  None of this amounts to sufficient RS coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC or prove WP:ENT notability. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. New content from The Daily Beast (third of the article) and Playboy interview (both WP:RS/Ps), and new non-tabloid RS to verify that she was the most downloaded porn actress on the world's largest porn site in 2019, an issue at the last DRV . In addition, non-tabloid RS from around the world (not produced at any past nomination), shows that she meets all three criteria of WP:NACTOR.  There is obviously a core group who don't like pornstars (and !voted at her past nominations), but I have taken the time to fix this BLP (having never seen it for the first three noms), and your representation of my work in not really fair. Wikipedia may want to ignore the world's most downloaded porn actor in 2019 (Mia Khalifa was 2018). Britishfinance (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Interviews are primary sources that rarely fact-check in real time. They don't count towards WP:BASIC notability.  The Daily Beast article is an contributor piece/op-ed by a porn star.  This was addressed in the 2nd AfD debate.  Articles need to be written in their sources' journalistic news-gathering/fact-finding voice to be considered reliable.  Guidelines are clear on this. • Gene93k (talk)
 * Regarding Mia Khalifa, a look at the citations shows she gained coverage in a large number of reliable sources (WaPo, CNN, BBC, etc). I think if this subject had that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Indeed, this has had 4 nominations now, whilst Articles for deletion/Mia Khalifa is still a redlink. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2020 (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.