Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rikki Six


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Rikki Six

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails PORNBIO as the only award listed is a NightMoves Award Best New Starlet (Editor’s Choice), which is not "well-known and significant". No significant RS coverage can be found to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable pornographic actress. The awards are no where near the level of establishing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP, as an article about a living person with no reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nom's arguments are on-target; subject's coverage clearly falls well below GNG requirements. Closest thing to a legitimate claim of notability is being married to a possibly notable athlete, but since the spouse doesn't have an article, there isn't even a redirect target. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets PORNBIO as well as GNG, Ofcourse this !vote has absolutely nothing to do with HOTTIE & all that... – Davey 2010 Talk 21:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO#1 with NightMoves Best New Starlet award, which is well-known/significant and not scene-related/ensemble. In 2002, the St. Petersburg Times noted that the NightMoves Awards were "the third largest in the porn industry". Other porn industry award ceremonies held in 2002 include AVN, XRCO, Venus, and NINFA, which are all considered well-known/significant industry awards by consensus, satisfying PORNBIO (,, , , & ). If at least two out of the four awards I've listed are smaller than NightMoves and still considered well-known/significant enough to meet PORNBIO, than NightMoves also satisfies PORNBIO. NightMoves is also the porn industry's third longest running awards show. Best New Starlet is a newcomer award, and those have overwhelming consensus favoring their inclusion in PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming consensus from four years ago has changed significantly since then, as, finally, it is being recognised that we can't base WP:BLPs on the fictional biographies produced by the porn industry, just as we don't base articles about living people in any other field on fictional bios. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition to the specialized criteria, the subject needs to meet WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" Additional criteria (aka SNG): "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these 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." An SNG is not a carte blanche to ignore WP:BASIC. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The NightMoves Award is the third oldest award in the industry given out since more than 20 years, much older than many notable European Awards, and e. g. has also built up a respected Hall of Fame. Held in Florida, it is actually the East Coast counterpart of e. g. AVN and XRCO from the West Coast. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- NightMoves Award may be "well known and significant", but the NightMoves Award Best New Starlet (Editor’s Choice) does not appear to be so. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why should one of the two or three most important categories of an award not be notable? Anybody could write that article, I'm sure it would not be deleted, lists for award categories are pretty normal. There is also no XRCO Award Best New Starlet article although XRCO is the second highest award. Up to this date there has just nobody been who wanted to write that article. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The NightMoves Award has 48 categories, further sub-divided in "Fan's choice" and "Editor's choice". That's almost 100 awards per year -- are all of them "well known and significant"? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I said that the Best New starlet award is definitely in the Top 3 of most important categories (excluding 3 honorary/achievement categories), I said nothing about categories like "Best Boobs" or "Best Body". Also, 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). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument here is really beside the point. Can anyone show that this article complies with our policy on biographies of living people by means of reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? It doesn't matter how much it may or may not comply with the WP:PORNBIO guideline if it doesn't comply with our most important policy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete This article does not comply with our core content guideline Verifiability which says that we must "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The claim that she won this award is referenced to XBIZ, a PR outlet which fails that standard, as do all the other sources in the article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, per samwinchester. Pwolit iets (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And how,exactly, does samwinchester's argument make this pass the WP:BLP and WP:V policies? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets PORNBIO and GNG. Subtropical -man   talk  (en-2)  21:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First: sign in. It is clear that you are a sock-puppet, your contributions show it, 86.17.222.157 are used only for AfD's and from the first edition, you well know Wikipedia.
 * Second: passes WP:PORNBIO#1 with NightMoves Best New Starlet award, which is well-known/significant and not scene-related/ensemble. In 2002, the St. Petersburg Times noted that the NightMoves Awards were "the third largest in the porn industry". And also passes WP:GNG - see sources in articles, some are non-pornography. Subtropical -man   talk  (en-2)  22:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - You should either back that accusation up or retract it entirely, Accusing someone of socking especially when they're not is a blockable offence, By all means take it to SPI if you truly believe they're a sock but either way you should back that accusation up now or retract it. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "not is a blockable offence"? 86.17.222.157 vote above and his contributions show clearly that sock-puppet (from first editions, well know Wikipedia and used only for AfD's). This is a friendly warning, if not cease such activities - take it to SPI and game over (result: blocked IP and main user-account).  Subtropical -man   talk  (en-2)  05:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I am not a sockpuppet. I have been editing Wikipedia for about ten years now so when my IP address last changed I was already very experienced. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Subtropical-man has a history of making phony sockpuppet accusations against editors he disagrees with. We can only hope some day his disruptive behaviour will be sanctioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I still don't see how the subject has met GNG by "receiving significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article says little about the subject, and the sources in the article are not close enough to develop a reliable, balanced biography of a living person. No new sources have been presented at the AfD either. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * delete fails gng. Uncited assertions should be ignored. Spartaz Humbug! 16:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Spartaz - non-policy based assertions and claims should be ignored. Another issue, which has already been mentioned, is there are no intellectually independent sources with significant coverage that demonstrate the award is significant or that demonstrate the the subject satisfies inclusion critera per WP:NRV - and WP:WHYN explains why this is so. As a BLP, according to WP:BLP, it must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)...contentious material about living persons...that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed... So, this AfD is in agreement with BLP criteria. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, it appears to me that John Pack Lambert, Hulabaloo, 86.17.222.157, K.e.coffman, and Spartaz present applicable policy based arguments throughout this AfD.
 * Delete The policy-based arguments above are on point. The others, not so much.  I try not to enter AfD's with just a "me, too" post but I really can't say what needs to be said about significant coverage, reliable sources, verifiability and our policies about biographies of living people any better than my colleagues already have. David in DC (talk) 15:53, 7 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.