Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Lauren


 * 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. The opinion that the subject's appearance in Fashionistas Safado: The Challenge meets the requirement of PORNBIO #2 has not been convincingly argued. J04n(talk page) 19:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Melissa Lauren

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. No real claim of notability. Little or no independent reliable sourcing. Negligible biographical content. Abusively deprodded without explanation or article improvement by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:PORNBIO#2 ("starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature"). Fashionistas Safado: The Challenge was referred to as "the most anticipated adult film of 2006" by Los Angeles (magazine), topped both sales and rental charts, and won the AVN Award for Best High-Definition Production and the NINFA Award for Best Film. Lauren received a NINFA Award nomination for Best Actress for her role in this film, which is proof that she actually starred in the film, not just appeared in it, otherwise she would have received a Best Supporting Actress nomination instead. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Rebecca, please don't distort sources or guidelines. You know perfectly well that "Fashionistas Safado: The Challenge" wasn't the top-selling or top-renting video of its year; AVN reported that "Pirates" took those titles. Topping a weekly or monthly chart )a detail you left out above) doesn't establish "blockbuster" status. And while it may have won a minor AVN award, and been recognized by a film festival, "Fashionistas Safado: The Challenge" lost the top video feature AVN Award to "Corruption"; it lost the FAME Award to "Island Fever 4"; and so on. To show that a film qualifies under PORNBIO#2, you need to provide independent, reliable sourcing to that effect, not your own original research or opinion as to what makes a film a blockbuster, iconic, or groundbreaking. See Articles for deletion/Patricia Rhomberg for the kind of sourcing required, by consensus, to meet the standard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - per argument by Rebecca. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   17:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - per argument by Rebecca, though I agree with Wolfy that the article could be improved. pumik9 (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Rebecca that this article meets minimum criteria. Hobbamock (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a borderline case, which in part depends upon whether Fashionistas Safado is "iconic" or a "blockbuster" or just almost those things - the wording of our guidelines is a bit strange. Yes, it was beaten in sales by Pirates and, it didn't win certain awards, while it did win others. But it is a significant film for several reasons, as the LA Magazine piece indicates. Lauren herself is well-known enough to have been a subject of this satirical piece (which doesn't actually offer any biographical information) and it's not nothing that she was the first female director at Diabolic. As for actual sources, her work in one of Belladonna's early trendsetting lesbian films has been critiqued in this academic book and feminist authors have had less substantive and kind things to say about her here and here - the first is a passing mention, which notes one of those silly legends to the effect that she had performed the longest scene of a certain type, but the fact that she was the subject of such a legend is indicative of her prominence. She is also mentioned in this French book to which I unfortunately lack access. I don't think it can be said that she clearly fails GNG. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - The film isn't notable whatsoever, Fails PORNBIO & GNG . – Davey 2010 Talk 14:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fashionistas Safado is notable as one of the last highly-successful big-budget films, as Sasha Grey's debut film, and as one of Stagliano's masterpieces. It's made print in four different languages: and is arguably one of the most "iconic" films of the past decade.
 * It's obvious what's going on here: most journalists have a better-developed sense of shame than I obviously do, so you don't see wide coverage of pornos or adult performers in mainstream media - the LA Magazine piece being an exception. This creates a situation where informed people feel like it's completely bizarre to be told that Melissa Lauren is not notable, and uninformed people assume that someone who has sparse mainstream media coverage must be insignificant. Both sides have a point - we should try to cover significant topics but we also need sources. I maintain this is a borderline case where there are enough sources for an article.
 * I would like to remind everyone that mainstream sources can be supplemented with the usual WP:BIASED RSes from the trade journals AVN and XBIZ, so sourcing the article isn't a problem, so long as we establish notability. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for being a BLP that demonstratively fails the GNG and because all the keep votes are a desparate travesty of what PB#3 actually requires. If the film were that iconic there would be proper sourcing to say so. the closing admin should ignore the keep side on the basis that their argument is based on what they want to be the case rather than what the evidence actually shows. That and a banana leaves you with a banana. Spartaz Humbug! 18:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's PB#2. In addition to my sources above, the film is mentioned here in German: and here in Vietnamese:. A 2010 fashion piece (in English) randomly namedrops it to make a metaphorical point:. How many fetish porn films form the 2000's get this much coverage, including internationally, years after their release? If you want the exact words "iconic" or "blockbuster" I can't find them, but the LA magazine article says "His Fashionistas, shot partly in Las Vegas, is the adult film industry’s equivalent of an Ocean’s Eleven."
 * You also didn't address the sources that cover Lauren herself. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mentions are not the substantial coverage required by the GNG. Being better sourced than 95% of the crud the proporn crowd trying to foist on us doesn't count for shit when the sourcing is still inadequate. Spartaz Humbug! 13:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Being referred to in a city newspaper as 'the most anticipated adult film of 2006' in no way establishes that the film was "an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature," which is clearly a very high standard. The low quality citations provided also do not do enough to meet this standard. Since she doesn't meet the GNG or WP:BIO, I don't see how this could meet the notability guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best, questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister   talk  23:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - One newspaper publicity blurb does not equate to "iconic." Leave that out and this is a simple failure of GNG and even the PORNBIO lowbar (which needs to be deprecated). Carrite (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As usual, our pornbio fans have delivered the goods in terms of vacuous biography and unfootnoted potentially libelous assertions about living people: "She would continue to perform with women, in solo scenes, and in photo shoots." Not the worst example, but typical of the D-minus caliber work of this genre of Wikipedia bio. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Spartaz's arguments. Finnegas (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * KEEP Again, for the arguments made above. Don't keep relisting or keeping the argument open simply because you didn't like the consensus decision Hobbamock (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * you already voted. Perhaps you could strike the keep and leave the rest as a comment? Spartaz Humbug! 17:45, 2 February 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.