Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Sandra Romain


 * 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 no consensus. The deletion arguments are basically (1) WP:LISTN, one of many ways of applying notability analysis to lists, which there is not a consensus to apply here, nor is it clear that approach would be most helpful or relevant for this kind of list; and (2) that the awards/nominations listed are excessive or indiscriminate for this particular topic. There is no argument that this information is unverifiable or otherwise clearly contrary to policy, and so this discussion then boils down to an editing dispute over what awards/nominations it is appropriate or relevant to list for this topic, and whether the information is then substantial enough to merit a WP:SPLIT from the parent bio article. And if it isn't, whether anything should be merged or the title just redirected to the corresponding section in the parent article. Editors are encouraged to continue an informed discussion on either the list or parent article's talk page. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Sandra Romain

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominations are no longer part of WP:PORNBIO, so they do not contribute to an actor's notability. The award nominations themselves are non-notable. The awards proper are already included in the main article Sandra Romain, so the list is unnecessary. The subject fails WP:GNG as there's no significant secondary RS coverage of the topic; the article is exclusively cited to WP:PRIMARY sources, which do not count towards notability.

Edit: the nominations themselves are meaningless due to rampant "award inflation" in the adult entertainment industry. For example, one of the major awards I looked into had 50 categories, further subdivided into "fan" and "editor's choice". AVN's awards include 15 nominations per category, and including such nominations is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and provides no encyclopedic value, and appears to primarily serve as WP:PROMO for titles and other actors. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't remember only notable honours to be listed in a complete list. The topic is a composition of Sandra Romain's success, not of the awards themselves. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment A parallel: Cameo of an actor does not make him notable, so it's not allowed to list that in his filmography. Yeah, that logic really makes sense... --SamWinchester000 (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Not a valid reason for deletion. What does PORNBIO have to do with a list of honors? Will you nominate for deletion List of accolades received by Lincoln (2012 film) and hundreds of similar articles because they include honors that don't "count" toward notability? You're comparing apples and oranges. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I added the reason above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per Malik - fails GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * : Per Malik? Rebb  ing  07:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - I have absolutely no idea why I've put Per Malik I really don't!, Thanks for spotting the error & notifying me :), Delete per nom. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per MOS:LIST and meeting WP:SAL and WP:LISTPURP. For a proper list, meeting GNG (or not) is not the deciding factor. And since the list lede states "The following is a list of awards and nominations received by Sandra Romain throughout her pornographic film career", it is specific, encyclopedic, and not at all WP:INDISCRIMINATE to readers who wish to better understand the topic. Further, 's points are well made and convincing, and comparing the short version in subject's article to the far more complete list, it is easy to see that the subject's article does not contain this more comprehensive information. inclusion criteria are met. Readers are enlightened. Sheesh.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Tentative delete. Although I can't speak to the merits of including all these nominations, they don't appear to me to be wholly indiscriminate. And, aside from the subject matter (I don't even have words for the fact that a film named Cum Fart Cocktails merited a sequel), this appears similar in principle to articles like List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. However, the notability requirement applies to standalone lists the same as any other article. See ("Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to . . . the notability guidelines."). The difference between this and the Swift awards list is that the subject of that article (the nominations and awards won by Ms. Swift) has received significant independent attention, whereas the same cannot be said here. List of accolades received by Lincoln (2012 film) is "other stuff" and may be appropriate for deletion for all I know.  Rebb  ing  07:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your logic says that if parts of the list are not notable, the notable rest or actually the composition of everything together isn't notable either. In that case I guess, we have to delete Swift's list as well, as I'm not so sure if her listed Channel V Thailand Music Video Awards, FiFi Awards, IFPI Global Recording Artist Award, iHeartRadio Music Awards, Bravo Ottos, Do Something Awards, mtvU Woodie Awards, Myx Music Award, Neox Fan Awards, American Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards, Los Premios 40 Principales, Radio Disney Music Awards or Telehit Awards have received "significant independent attention" and therefore are notable enough for the ambitious rest of the list, a list, which should of course be anything but complete... --SamWinchester000 (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You misread my vote: I didn't say every entry in such a list had to be notable, see WP:NNC, but that the subject—the awards as a collection or even multiple individual awards—must have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I see no such coverage here, whereas it is clearly present there. Rebb  ing  10:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Great, K.e.coffman, you're just lying again. The last time I called it "manipulate". As you keep alleging the same undifferentiated view, I'll call it "lie" this time. Once again: "please differentiate a bit instead of manipulating, more than half of the categories are not personal but for films, studios and websites. There are ca. 20 personal categories from which again a part is for producers. Current Performer categories are 12 (excluding 3 honorary/achievement categories)." Most porn awards are for film productions, their companies, distributors etc., only a little part of your very objectively named "award inflation" is for performers and personal (which means not scene-related) and makes notable (actually not even that as we see in grotesque AfD "inflation"). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: the discussion of the value of the awards is secondary to the fact that the article does not meet GNG. What is the significant RS coverage that covers the topic of "awards and nominations received by Sandra Romain"? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet, your reasoning was that nominations do not contribute to her notability. Deleting the whole list because parts of it are not notable on their own does not make sense, so you adapted your reasoning. However, you lied (or just didn't understand) in order to keep disrespecting those nominations even more by claiming that she would generally be able to be nominated in 50 categories, which is absolutely wrong but will easily influence everyone's first opinion. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The "notable parts" (i.e. the awards, vs nominations) are already present in the main article on the actress; nobody is trying to delete them from there. Thus, this article is an indiscriminate list that does not meet GNG as a stand-alone list (see WP:SAL). K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to clarify: A list is to inform readers, and per governing guidelines, MOS:LIST and WP:SAL and WP:LISTPURP, as long as they are verifiable items in a simple and discriminate list are not themselves required to meet WP:GNG.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- this is not how I'm reading WP:SAL, which states:
 * Being articles, stand-alone lists subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines.
 * So the subject of "awards and nominations received by X" does need to meet the notability guideline. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mixing policy and guideline as if absolutes need examination. Our content policies instruct on Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), Verifiability (WP:V), and No original research (WP:NOR). Yes, WP:SAL does briefly mention WP:N which itself advises "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and itself qualifies that the WP:N "guideline only outlines how suitable a topic is for its own article or list". A list that is neutral, verifiable, and not original research, is not forbidden nor disallowed. I will grant that a merge to Sandra Romain is suitable under policy WP:ATD.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mixing policy and guideline as if absolutes need examination. Our content policies instruct on Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), Verifiability (WP:V), and No original research (WP:NOR). Yes, WP:SAL does briefly mention WP:N which itself advises "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and itself qualifies that the WP:N "guideline only outlines how suitable a topic is for its own article or list". A list that is neutral, verifiable, and not original research, is not forbidden nor disallowed. I will grant that a merge to Sandra Romain is suitable under policy WP:ATD.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd like to ask the nom to please stop editing the deletion rationale at the top of the page in violation of the talk page guidelines. Once other editors have responded to you, please follow WP:REDACT if you feel the need to edit your own comments. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, per malik shabazz. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- so far, no RS have been presented that cover the subject of "Awards and nominations received by Sandra Romain". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Venerability does not require a source to be expansive. Just as SAG can confirm SAG Awards, XBIZ and AVN can verify the awards they give for their respective genres. And if you choose to look, the SAG Awards article is lengthy and poorly sourced but is itself seen to meet WP:SAL an WP:LISTPURP despite that "weakness". Will you be bringing it here next, or are you somehow picking your targets?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article under discussion is not AVN Awards but awards and nominations received by a specific performer -- we'd need secondary sources that discuss the subject of "awards and nominations received by Sandra Romain" to meet WP:SAL, not just about AVN awards, or any other awards. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Excessive coverage. the main article is sufficient.  DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 22 September 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.