Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Keyes


 * 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. Overall consensus herein is for deletion. North America1000 01:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

London Keyes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 07:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom - fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - multi-AVN award-nominated, 14 nominations to awards, 9x interwiki. Generally, notable. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   19:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been pointed out before repeatedly that porn award nominations don't establish notability per consensus guidelines. Neither does the presence in other language wikis. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PORNBIO/BIO in intro say " It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" - for me (in the form of generally), this person are notable: too many nominations to awards (no only two or three), many interwiki, well known etc etc. Gene93k, other users may vote differently than you, you may not agree or do not like arguments by other users but please stop trolling posts by other users. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   21:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just give up on porn AFD's Subtropical it's not worth the time. She may have 14 nominations of the top two awards in her profession but it's porn so it is not taken seriously. It's obvious the mainstream media won't report on them and since their own magazines don't count (they're "promotional") and they are typically the only ones to report on them probably less then 75 porn people would qualify under these requirements, and they will probably get stricter too.


 * One Direction members don't even qualify for wiki. Play 5 minutes of a pro sports match and you're in though (Which funnily enough made Louis Tomlinson qualify.). We will only have actors who win the Academy Award for Best Actor next. How about this guy, Joseph Kszyczewiski?. Since porn is sex which everyone does, it make it seem like it's top awards are a joke (even though they mainly base it off work ethic/how much got done in the year plus who get's the most attention), that's why stuff like internet memes/youtubers/reality stars/beauty pageants/porn/criminals/death metal/pro gaming/diplomats/soap operas (occupations with negative reputations) things that working class/women/teenagers are normally fans of or are seen as repugnant (criminals) have a harder time qualifying.


 * One Direction is another example, it has a primarily teenage girl fanbase so it's members (only two now do) fail WP:Band even though they are the biggest band in the world for the last 3 years. But if you play bass in a 80s rock band for one year before they got gigantic you're in. Anything that does not apply to High culture is generally not respected by editor's on here. Something like Billboard (magazine) is accepted as a reliable source as pop music has a favorable view but since porn is seen negatively (morally wrong) AVN (magazine) is seen as unreliable/promotional, it has higher standards. I've done a test on this and have viewed about 10, 000 biographies which i have a list of and the majority of people in occupations which are negatively seen are nominated for deletion/merged/re-directed. It's unfair on occupations to rely on New York Times/Forbes etc for interviews, that's why we rely on trade magazines who normally report on the top people in their field. In this case AVN does not generally report on people who have shot 5 amateur scenes in their basement. Name me a field where if you get 14 nominations in the top two awards (Like the academy/golden globes) of your industry you do not qualify for an article.


 * Here's an example Maddy O'Reilly has gotten more media attention then Rebecca Morris or Guy Cook but who do you think will have a harder/stricter time passing and which is most likely to be nominated for deletion? Oh well, porn stars are just some T&A apparently ;). Hell even the Corey Worthington debates proved this, if it was a acadamic who got that level of attention for the exact same thing it would have stayed and that one event guideline would have not been brought up.


 * As a closing statement checkout this [] a youtube star which as a career is seen as a much more deserving occupation then pornography and a person who has the same-ish small coverage as London Keyes (one article in the guardian would not qualify London for some people), yet big difference in some people's word's. This guy is the same [] hugely repugnant occupation but certainly should have an entry as it was major news on 3 continents, but look at some of the opposition, fortunately people came to their senses but it proves that a small bias is in all of us. Food for thought. GuzzyG (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails the notability guidelines. Snowsuit Wearer (talk&#124;contribs) 20:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep notable.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do I think your Subtropical Man under another account ? .... Wonder what brings me too that conclusion!. – Davey 2010 Talk 08:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * are you accusing me to create sockpuppet? or I misunderstood your post. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   14:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood my post. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, multiple nominations for porn awards is a deprecated criteria of WP:PORNBIO, thus cannot be used to meet the project's notability threshold. Subtropical Man's vote can be ignored as it runs counter to established community norms on notability and inclusion criteria, as can "Hillary Scott`love"'s as "keep it's notable" is a a wrong argument to make in an deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Award nominations alone are not enough to pass PORNBIO per my comments above. Not finding significant RS coverage to pass GNG. Porn trade press coverage is mainly republished press releases. Even if you count the XBIZ "L for London" coverage cited in the article as reliable, it's not enough by itself. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Tarc & Gene93k. Finnegas (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete no notability under the amended PORNBIO guideline, alas, clean-up after changed consensus is necessary Kraxler (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gene93k's spot-on analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:30, 2 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.