Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinky (pornographic actress)


 * 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. There is a consensus here for deletion at this time, but some strong keep arguments were made. I'd have no objection to a user working further on a draft version in their userspace, if they so desire. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Pinky (pornographic actress)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:MUSIC, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other SNG. All GNews and Gbooks hits, both for the performer and mixtape name, appear either trivial or spurious. Urban Spice/Urban X awards and nominations, by consensus, cannot establish notability; other noms are limited to a single year. No significant, useful, reliably sourced biographical content; her claimed mixtape is documented mainly by a site that is devoted to "free mixtapes." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The chipping stops here. Satisfies criteria 3 of WP:PORNBIO through her contributions to ethnic (black) pornography. Those multiple Urban X/Spice Awards over multiple years are evidence of it. The whole point of those awards were to recognise the contributions of performers in a niche genre of pornography that is often overlooked by the AVN Awards. Pinky is one of the most popular black pornographic actresses out there and those awards demonstrate that the pornography industry think she's one of the best. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Let's look at sources, shall we? Adult Video News? XBiz.com? Personal web page? That dog don't hunt. Fails GNG, regardless of whether or not she's made a demo tape. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment look at WP:PORN, Xbiz.com and AVN.com are commonly accepted reliable sources for articles about pornography, except obviously press releases (and a quick look indicates that this is not the case). Your comment appears off topic and quite demagogic. --Cavarrone (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep As per Morbidthoughts - award-winning performer in entertainment niche. Wefihe (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * delete as far as I understand it specific guides inform our interpretation of, but never superceede, WP:GNG. The fact she can meet WP:PORNBIO and fail WP:GNG so spectacularly show exactly why PORNBIO is seen as the lowest of low-hanging fruit when it comes to BLP notability. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand what you mean. I cannot find where the article "fail WP:GNG so spectacularly", WP:PORNBIO is part of WP:GNG... and however WP:ANYBIO, criterium 1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.". The question is whether in some cases Urban X/Spice Award could be considered, or not considered, a significant award as AVN Award, FAME Award or XRCO Award. Plain and simple.--Cavarrone (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Response. From WP:N: "Failure to meet these [specialized] criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Specialized notability guidelines (SNGs) are valid only to the extent they are good predictors of GNG outcomes. The community has, for some time, been at best skeptical about WP:PORNBIO, which Jimmy Wales has criticized, and the fact that such a large percentage of the performers whose claim notability rests principally on the Urban Spice/X award don't pass the GNG indicates that, even if the PORNBIO SNG is valid, that the award doesn't qualify as "well-known" or "significant," which in this context is a higher standard than "notable." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Simply talking, I understand what you say, but I still do not see where article "fail WP:GNG so spectacularly", WP:ANYBIO talks about  well-known and significant award, WP:PORNBIO talks about well-known award, different concept but very similar... Maybe the subject passes WP:GNG, maybe not, but clearly it doesn't fail spectacularly WP:GNG, also considering what you wrote. The deal is around the Urban Spice/X award significance-status, at the moment I don't have a clear opinion about this award's importance, however I'm waiting to read more substantive arguments. Obviously the two delete votes, as now, are really weakly argumented --Cavarrone (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm afraid I must side with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on this one. Frankly, I am offended by implication that the subject's ethnicity imparts notability. African Americans are no longer as rare as they once were, though, assuming Good Faith, your neighborhoods may differ. I don't think that merely being of African descent constitutes Notability anymore, and I believe consensus will back me up. We learn from the article that the subject copulates. Well, we all do this, individually and in concert with others, given the opportunity, don't we? Indeed most of us-- regardless of ethnic background-- would not be here today without someone having copulated with someone or something else. As such it is no different from any other bodily function done on a semi-regular basis... Moving one's bowels for example. The "award", I regard as simply a pat on the back for a job well done. Who among us has not given his or her partner a pat on the back after a rousing bout of sex? (Indeed, even if it were not so rousing, simply out of common courtesy.) To carry the analogy further, this would be no different from showing one's spouse a particularly impressive bowel movement, and getting a "Wow!" or "Wouldja look at that!" out of him or her. Again, who among us has not done this? So the "Keep" votes boil down to claiming that Wikipedia needs an article on every (1) American of African ancestry who has (2) had sex and (3) received a pat on the back. This is like claiming we need an article on every (1) Irishman who has (2) taken a really big dump and then (3) shown it proudly to his admiring wife. Ridiculous. Gentlemen, I urge you to consider Wikipedia's reputation as a bastion of reasoned discussion, and join me in voting Delete. Thank you. Dekkappai (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Impeccable logic, Chewbacca would be proud. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So if it were up to you, Wikipedia would be a collection of articles on defecating Gaels. Whatever, dude. I, however, have joined my esteemed colleagues in a higher, purer vision for Wikipedia. The shining intellects of Wikipedia's ruling elite have put together Notability standards-- among other things-- which exclude subjects we don't feel should be covered here, while allowing the most trivial subjects that we do like... And if they don't do that sufficiently, they can be easily interpreted one way at one AfD, and another at another AfD to make it so. No less magnificent a personnage than Jimbo Wales himself agrees with opinions every bit as logical as my argument, such as if one newspaper errs once, then all newspapers are unreliable... when they are used to source something we don't want to see here, that is. As for your mocking my argument, Qrsdogg, I suggest you follow the example of our compatriots here on this page, and indulge me in strained silence, as if I had just stood up and farted loudly during a church service. Good day to you, sir. Dekkappai (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strike the crapping Celts, and substitute "Worlds Best Grandpa". It's a much more refined argument. In my defense, though, HB has been doing this thing much longer than I have... So... If this article is allowed to stand, I swear on the grave of my World's Greatest Grandpa that I will flood Wikipedia with stubs on every recipient of the World's Greatest Grandpa award! Don't tempt me! Dekkappai (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting observations, I shall ponder them with the mute silence of a devout parishioner smelling the result of day-old curry. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...I just wonder which performer the "World's Greatest Grandpa" down there !voted for-- er, patted on the back-- four times, no less... Dekkappai (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Morbidthoughts, it looks like there's a good argument that she meets PORNBIO #3. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. PORNBIO #3 refers to performers who have made "unique contributions" in a "specific pornographic genre." Perhaps you could explain what the argument relating to this criterion is. None of the pertinent keep !votes so far do so. Even allowing "ethnic pornography," broadly, to be a "specific genre," the only claim seems to be that she's "popular." How can that possibly be a "unique contribution"? The "popularity" argument, along with the related "prolific" argument has been soundly rejected by consensus at prior AFDs, and isn't supported by the PORNBIO guideline. It seems to be no more than a hand-waving attempt to turn winning an award that isn't well-known or significant into the equivalent of winning one that is. And if that's the case, I want my own "World's Greatest Grandpa" article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Except I'm not making a popularity argument with the awards. Just evidence that she is considered the best in her field which is only recognised by the mainstream pornography awards in the movie categories, not performing. For whatever reasons, the performer nominations for AVN always ignore the actresses that perform mostly in ethnic lines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So the AVN Awards don't accurately reflect industry opinion? That's part of the import of your argument. But, homing in on the target, the Urban X performer awards are just popularity contests, and not very well run. I went to their site this afternoon and voted four times (cookie manager). And I still don't see any explanation of the supposed "unique contribution" called for by PORNBIO #3. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For certain genres, the AVNs are a terrible gauge kind of like the Grammys are a terrible gauge for certain styles of music (at least in the past). The ethnic market is large, especially in the inner city. I'm not familiar with how the Urban X Awards are run or figured out. I didn't even know the public could vote for it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * These awards don't announce any information about how nominees and winners are selected -- hardly a good sign, since the "sponsoring" organization exists only to hand out the awards. Just the fact that awards exist doesn't make them significant. There are all sorts of "red flags" on the award's website, beginning with the advertising, that don't exactly inspire confidence in the validity of whatever process is involved. Not only are the "talent" awards voted on in a website poll, but there's also a "special" award that can only be won by videos from a single studio . This looks much more like the awards for self-published authors, for webcomics, and similar "honors" that don't qualify to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even if one were to take seriously the concept of "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre" (people having sex are just people having sex, no matter what their skin color is), such contributions are not documented (let alone reliably sourced) in the article, and notability is not otherwise established.  Sandstein   07:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It states that she has won the 2009 Urban X Award for porn star of the year, which is accompanied by a third-party source. So not only this passes WP:PORNBIO but it also passes WP:ANYBIO too. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 08:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Response. There's been a consensus, going back about two years, based on repeated discussions at AFD and DRV, that the Urban X/Urban Spice awards do not satisfy the "well-known" and "significant" standards of PORNBIO and ANYBIO. See such examples as Articles for deletion/Sara Jay (3rd nomination), Articles for deletion/Aurora Jolie, Articles for deletion/Devlin Weed, Articles for deletion/Kitten (pornographic actress), and Deletion_review/Log/2011_January_24. The DRV may provide the clearest discussion. If you can provide evidence that the award is "well-known" and "significant," which is a higher standard than notability, please do so. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet any of the associated BIO standards. Not notable enough. TerriersFan (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2011 (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.