Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolly Badcock (2nd 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. S warm  ♠  22:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Lolly Badcock
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Scene awards dont count so now fails Pornbio. A mention on 1 page of a book doesnt cut it for the GNG Spartaz Humbug! 22:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: what scene awards? 2007 UK Adult Film and Television Awards - Most Outrageous Female Performance is individual award. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   17:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * female performance is clearly related to a specific activity - which makes it a scene awrd. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 05:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Subtropical:man, don't waste your time on this mess you cannot get anywhere with these folks. They are sex-negative, if they had their way there would be no porn actors on this site. They're just "T&A/big knockers" to these folks, it's a majority female industry, so they want it gone. we had decent bio-standards before where if you were nominated for the biggest awards in your industry you got in {like any other industry) but they badgered it down to the equivalent of winning the Oscar award for best actor. They get by on the loophole that porn will not get reported on in mainstream media and they can play the magazines that do report on them off as "trade magazines" even though other industries trade magazines (Billboard) are fine. Can't believe legitimate Japanese articles (porn is mainstream in Japan) are being deleted because people are searching rōmaji and can't find anything. Bias, i can't even stand porn but they are the only ones getting un-warrented mass deletions (other then criminals). GuzzyG (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - individual award.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Most Outrageous Performance" is a scene award, and in any event there's no basis for claiming it's a significant category. Even more important, the UKAFTAs generally fail the "well-known"/significant standard; they were a short-lived, for-profit awards ceremony that were noted for the publicity stunts they staged to promote the ceremonies rather than any stature in the industry. Comments from one award-winner are telling: director James Bennett described the awards as "amateurish and desperate" and "staged and insignificant"; he also reported that "it seemed that all it took to win awards was a few phone calls to the right people and an advance payment for a full table at the event". UKAFTAs also went to videos that hadn't been released at the time they won (another sign the awards were pay-for-play) and, in at least one case, for a video that never existed (try to find Jamie Brooks's 2007 award-quality performance in "Cream Bunz"!) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails GNG. Try Wikia. Carrite (talk) 21:38, 22 September 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.