Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selena Silver (2nd 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   no consensus. Perhaps a change needs to be made to WP:PORNBIO before this goes up for AFD again. v/r - TP 15:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Selena Silver
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I fail to see how this person is notable amid the lack of independent published sources and significant coverage in Google searches. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PORNBIO and wins and nominations in multiple years. Even discounting the 2003, 2004 and 2005 CAVR Awards, the article shows XRCO in 2005 and AVN in 2005 and 2006.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 11:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually she has failed to make unique contributions to specific pornographic genres, she has not began a trend in pornography, has not starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature AND has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. Therefore she does not pass the WP:PORNBIO, and the last reason also means that she fails the WP:GNG. 11coolguy12 (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. One is not required to meet all of that (or any) SNG's criteria, if at least one is met (and she has met two of them to pass PORNBIO). SNGs are set to help ascertain notability in those instances where GNG may not be met but an assertion of notability as described in an SNG is at least verifiable.  Failing GNG does mean we ignore SNGs nor vice-versus.  GNG does not "trump" SNGs. SNGs don't "trump" GNG.  They are both parts of the greater WP:N and intended to work in cooperation, not disharmony, to determine if a topic is in some manner "worthy of notice".    Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. She passes WP:PORNBIO with AVN nominations in 2005 and 2006. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, multiple awards and nominations, passes WP:PORNBIO. -- fdewaele, 12 October 2011, 18:52 CET
 * Delete. WP:PORNBIO is a defective guideline, which sets the bar for notability far too low, and I reject it.  AVN is very prolific with its awards, throwing out large numbers every year, and winning an AVN award is not a noteworthy accomplishment.  The correct test of notability for pornographic actors is exactly the same as for everyone else: the GNG.  I cannot find evidence that Selena Silver passes it.— S Marshall  T/C 19:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree in many ways with S Marshall. WP:PORNBIO is a very poor indicator of a subject's likelihood of meeting the GNG, and no longer enjoys the support of a consensus in the community; it has survived mainly because there is no consensus on how to replace it. It's undeniable that, in comparison to virtually any other field, awards and nominations are handed out profligately (the temptation is to say promiscuously); I reviewed a year's worth of AVN award nominations a while back, and found that it was fairly easy to predict which releases would be nominated for awards: their producers had purchased large enough (half-page or more) ads in AVN. The subject here has no nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. The pre-2005 "awards"/noms are trivial and do not contribute to notability. The 2006 nomination relates to a scene the subject appears in, in a category where sixteen scenes are nominated and about fifty performers are listed. It is very difficult to give any significant weight to such an award nomination. The article itself includes no reliably sourced biographical information. Therefore, given the complete absence of independent, reliable sourcing, and the fact that the subject satisfies WP:PORNBIO only in a minor and technical sense, I conclude there is no evidence of genuine notability and would delete the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I generally dislike making 'per' votes, but in this case S Marshall and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have summed up the situation incredibly well. I will content myself with saying 'per S Marshall and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz'. Jenks24 (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Satisfies criteria 2 of the PORNBIO guidelines. I do believe the guidelines can and should be tightened but this should be done at the guideline page rather than trying to establish consensus at an AfD of a minor article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed PORNBIO litle resembles its original version or intent. So be it. Continued deprecation of PORNBIO needs to be addressed at PORNBIO, and not one-by-one at AFDs. But until PORNBIO is eliminated (and we then fall back to WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACTOR and have arguments all over again about genre awards seen as significant to and for that billion-dollar-industry, and whether having a significant role in genre-notable film meets WP:ENT), its few remaining instructions still have merit. GNG require SIGCOV. SNGs require WP:V in WP:RS which verifiability does not itself have to be SIGCOV (or we may as well eliminate ALL SNGs). The GNG and SNGs are not mutually exclusive. And toward the number of awards AVN gives, the Academy Awards also have an loooooong list of awards they give out, many shared by multiple nominees, and themselves have criticism for being self-serving. But that too is discussion in another place, as here we apply the SNG we are given.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Holy words, all the arguments for deletion aren't about the subject but about the guideline. Here we must only judge whether the subject respects the guidelines criteria or not, if you want discuss or improve the guideline, do it in an apposite discussion. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're correct. This is not the place to re-write guideline. Sorry I responded so TLDR.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * She fails the GNG. There's a reasonable case to be made that she fails WP:PORNBIO, since "Best All-Girl Sex Scene (Video)" is not a performer award, by AVN's own classification; it's not unreasonable to say that the existence of so many obscure subcategories weighs against classifying all of them as inherently "well-known." Guidelines like WP:PORNBIO are to be "best treated with common sense" and subject to "occasional exceptions." It's hardly contrary to policy or practice to conclude that failure to meet the GNG outweighs marginal satisfaction of an SNG when the relevant SNG is viewed by a substantial segment of the community, as Jimbo Wales said, as "seriouslymisguided." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well-known within the porn genre does not mean such awards "must" be well-known outside that genre. And all guidelines, including WP:N itself, use the caveat "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". And if PORNBIO is now seen as "marginal", that is due to that SNG itself being slowly de-commissioned since its creation, and in reflecton of even Jimmy Wales himself appearing to understand the unsuitability of this subject matter in an encyclopdia accessible by minor children... but for now, PORNBIO is still here.  As parts of WP:N, the GNG is set to describe circumstances where notability might be determined through availability of significant, and the SNGs are set to describe circumstances where a verifiable topic may still be "worthy of note" in the absence of SIGCOV.  Wikipedia inclusion is about verifiability of noteworthy assertions, and not about only the most popular or most media-covered topics (though such coverage is helpful).  The assertion allowed by PORNBIO (current version) is that she is verifiable as having received or been nominated for awards notable to her genre.  It is not asserted that this porn star has received SIGCOV in mainstream publications, nor is that a policy or guideline mandate.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As established in discussions on other subjects, webcomics coming to mind, an award's being well-known in narrow confines doesn't mean it demonstrates notability. And, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, verifiability is insufficient for inclusion. Otherwise being "employee of the month" in a notable enterprise would suffice to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep clearly satisfies criteria 2 of WP:PORNBIO, as written above. Pornbio#2 ("Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years") is anything else than the corresponding of WP:ANYBIO criteria 1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times"), applied in his specific field.--Cavarrone (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And ANYBIO is what we'll be using once PORNBIO is gone.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Point being..? She fails the remaining criteria of WP:PORNBIO. The fourth criteria is quite apparently the most important of them as it can be linked to the basic criteria of biographies. This debate is not about the guideline itself, but my point is that Silver has not been featured in mainstream media. 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your arguments are the strongest and the more convincing for a keep result. They show that you probably didn't read the whole guideline, or at least you haven't fully comprehended it. The guideline says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards", not "the whole set of criteria", and that's so obvious. Just one or two pornographic actors satisfies all the criteria, as any academic satisfies all the WP:ACADEMIC criteria and very few mainstream actors could meet all WP:ENT criteria. With your personal ideas of inclusion probably Wikipedia should not have more than 100 articles! The guideline explicitly says that deletion procedures should be considered just when "no criteria can be met". See here: Failing all criteria. --Cavarrone (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per S. Marshall; reasons for deletion are too prominent to be ignored. Sailodge (talk) 04:02, 19 October 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.