Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Jay (4th 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.  Sandstein  07:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sara Jay
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

G4 speedy deletion contested by for Recreating from machine translation of pt:Sara Jay, per Wikipedia licensing. I believe this needs revisiting, since the article's deletion in 2011, which is now 5 years ago. I can't see any reason why this does not now pass WP:PORNBIO, particularly with the Hall of Fame award -- this article exists on multiple other Wikipedias, and clearly meets their WP:PORNBIO criteria., thus sending it here. I am sort of expecting another deletion, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete' as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Still fails GNG and PORNBIO. As noted in the the 3rd nomination AfD in 2011, winning an Urban X Award does not establish notability per WP:PORNBIO. Several AfD debates since 2011 have come to the same conclusion. The semi-reliable coverage in the porn trade press is not enough to satisfy GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: per both WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG: Firstly, PORNBIO: What makes the AVN and XBIZ Halls of Fame distinct from the Urban X Hall of Fame? As far as I can see, both are porn industry insider events, not directly connected to the individuals given awards, and listed in the adult entertainment awards template. The WP:PORNBIO criteria states as one possible criterion for notability the following: "a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent." The key words here are "or equivalent." Secondly, GNG: here's mainstream media coverage featuring her, via Google News:, , ,   I could work on digging out more, but she clearly has some mainstream celebrity. Update: the 2012 stunt with Siri seems to have brought her to international attention: , . Per-country searching also yields interesting results: the Greek media, for example, seem to be quite interested in her. As a matter of procedure, apart from her apparent international (minor) celebrity, is any further evidence of meeting WP:GNG needed? -- The Anome (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete She fails both PORNBIO and GNG. Several Urban X Award Hall of Fame inductees have been deleted in the past that didn't have other qualifying awards or coverage (Ray Victory, Kitten, Lacey Duvalle, Devlin Weed and Mercedes Ashley to name some). It is not an equivalent of the AVN or XRCO HOF. The news coverage (not reliable outlets anyway) falls short of the GNG. Just fluff and stunt coverage, with no substantial reliable content on her life or career. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets requirements of both WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Subtropical -man   talk  (en-2)  23:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how it meets PORNBIO & GNG without copying the above ? .... – Davey 2010 Talk 00:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This editor always votes keep in porn-related deletion debates. Such assertions without evidence are usually discounted. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear delectionists i.e. Davey2010, Gene93k etc Sara Jay won: Urban X Award - Best Interracial Star and Urban X Award - Hall of Fame, so - meets requirements of WP:PORNBIO and also there are interpendent (non-porn) sources, in article - for example: Limite Magazine, so - meets requirements of WP:GNG Moreover, arguments by User:The Anome.  Subtropical -man   talk  (en-2)  15:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete In short- A detailed check of the sources finds that neither claim being made for article retention comes anywhere close to meeting our usual standards. Furthermore, a high proportion of the article content is unreferenced and is tagged as such. For these 3 reasons, there is nothing worth retaining here. I recommend deletion and I would suggest that this topic should be considered for possible salting because it should not go through AfD after AfD to reconsider the essentially similar, grossly subthreshold elements. In depth - 1. The collective community WP:PORNBIO consensus has decided that Urban X HOF is not "equivalent" to AVN or XRCO HOF. This is a legitimate benchmark for this topic area, just as other factors are, within their areas. This issue was convincingly addressed in detailed analysis in the prior AfD, and this issue is also updated above (• Gene93k). It is not enough to push against that consensus "just because". 2. Even after almost a decade of attempts at content improvement, the topic content still has a good proportion of its text tagged as needing supporting references. 3. As to WP:GNG, I examined the "sources" in the article, as well as those newly suggested above, and from an independent search. They collectively show absolutely no in-depth treatment, or analysis, or encyclopedically relevant contextualization. Full-on deep-depth analysis for the scratchy-minded who prefer a glossy graphic spread - Blow-by-blow, item-by-item, probing analysis of the putative claims for mainstream media presence is quite revealing as the sources are extremely skimpy mentions in completely exciting but intellectually dodgy sources. Yes, the three T's: Telegraph, Times and Tribune. Oops, sorry, strike that - it's the other three T's: Terra, Trome, and Tud, (written by MrMecc, if you can believe it), as well as PopDust. These all skirt around very short sensationalist social media messages; they are quite plainly kanoodling and deep kissing conveyors of promotional hype. This type of so-called mainstream sourcing is encyclopedically irrelevant. It is "mainstream" only in the peculiarly narrow sense that it's not porno industry directly - except actually it's quite obvious on looking at the "sources" that they are message fluffers, whose existentialist paradigm is to attractively "place" the entertainment industry's verbatim quotes or very mildly-modified porn industry press releases, social media hype, and advertising "stunts" - The Anome is completely bullseye on that choice of wording. More than half of one of these "mainstream" sources lays out (with a high proportion of red-lining emphasis and capital letters - I am not making this up) the exact rules on how to show up and possibly complete an orally intimate visit with the servicing provider, subject to there being only one day to cum to meet the talented entertainer person, who.... reserves the right to change the date of the "stunt" to any other day (...that you can't show up and hope for service). The other half of the article lists the names (and legal challenges) of some people who have a history of making a recurrent success of sharing the day with the entertainer for these "stunts". (I am actually not puffing that up bigger than its original size either.) "Mainstream" isn't the same thing at all as "reliable sourcing" and conflating these concepts would be... a very full mouthful; really quite messy.  Then there is the Limité source, which far from being a magazine in a conventional sense, is a blog posted by Adrian "Age" Farquharson (sic), of a word-for-word interview with the subject (so hardly independent of the topic) where we learn... actually "not too much" (unless the age of first sex of various types or of state of mind while preparing for a session is "much".) It is neither independent, nor is it non-porn. We also have the offer of both Hypervocal and ComPlex as sources, where quite frankly the most pressing thing we learn from either is that the subject says she has a thing for Sneakerheads. (There is a conveniently adjacent advertorial video from Nike.) Really? Sweaty footwear, anyone? FeatherPluma (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Needs better sources. Spartaz Humbug! 18:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, speedy delete. As solidly and repeatedly established in prior discussions, the Urban X/Urban Spice awards fail to meet PORNBIO standards. In particular, the Urban X hall of fame is not an industry hall of fame, as required by the applicable SNG, but a personal project associated with a short-lived, for-profit awards ceremony. The article creator's claim that the awards are "not directly connected to the individuals given awards" is palpably false; a lion's share of these "awards" went to projects and individuals associated with the awardgiver's husband, whose businesses these awards were contrived to promote. The db-repost speedy was erroneously declined; the admin who did so substituted their own poorly informed impressions for well-established consensus, repeatedly confirmed since the prior AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence of that non-independence, or pointers to discussions presenting that argument? If that's the case, then I would agree the argument shifts somewhat more in the direction of deletion. -- The Anome (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See, for example, Articles for deletion/Jazmine Cashmere and the discussions cited there. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per persuasive arguments made by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and User:FeatherPluma.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 20 July 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.