Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobi Hill-Meyer


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Tobi Hill-Meyer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:PORNBIO, she has won 1 minor, obscure, award, and her movies aren't very groundbreaking themselves. There have been many transgender movies before them. Yet the sources are blogs, obscure magazines, and self-published sources. I see no coverage in the mainstream media to make this transgender porn star more notable than the multitude of other transgender porn stars. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, she's not JUST a porn star. She's also a writer and director (albeit a director of porn). She might or might not be notable for her work in those fields, but your rationale ignores those roles completely. -- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 15:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment "The following criteria should be brought up in a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion only in relation to subjects who are or have been involved in the pornography industry" is what is stated at WP:PORNBIO. She's been involved significantly in the pornography industry, and that's her 'main claim to fame'. My rationale includes all of the fields of pornography she's been involved in, and the fact that her books have not been covered in reliable sources. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 16:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.   Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 16:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "the sources are blogs, obscure magazines, and self-published sources": Can you clarify? I admit Original Plumbing is an obscure magazine, but are you saying the Daily Xtra is a blog and The Feminist Press is a vanity press?-- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 16:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought the Daily Xtra was some sort of blog type site, but it's actually a glossy magazine, which usually precludes it from WP:RS, and Original Plumbing doesn't seem very reliable either, as another glossy magazine with fake penises featured prominently on the cover (for transexual women-to-men who need prosthetics). Original Plumbing also has this article, in which the author did not capitalize his own name. The Feminist Press is some sort of publishing department at the "city university of New York", which seems vary vague as to whether it is in New York City or some other city like Buffalo. I like to point to examples of the content, however, when saying that something is not WP:RS. Such as this excerpt, which changes the text orientation on every page, and long run on sentences about feminism related topics. The writer also fails to capitalize the first word of the sentence, "I". Novato 123chess456 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * CUNY is in New York City, as clearly stated on its Wikipedia page. But the "vagueness" of the location really shouldn't be relevant to whether a book published there is reliable. The text's orientation is not changed at all in the excerpt of King Kong Theory you linked. It's the alignment. At any rate that is a translation of a French book originally published by another publisher so I'm not sure if that's relevant here...
 * "Fake penises featured prominently on the cover" of Original Plumbing??? Not sure where you got that idea...-- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 21:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You have also failed to address the key point I've raised, that none of the sources cover the subject of the article in-depth, are not affiliated, and pass WP:RS, the feminist book contains ten pages written by the subject of this article, obviously it's an affiliated source, and doesn't cover Hill-Meyer in any other section of the book. The Daily Xtra (NSFW) is a glossy magazine, and the one article it has on Hill-Meyer only covers her pornographic aspect of her career. Original plumbing (actual porn in the link) contains an interview with Tobi Hill-Meyer about her porn life. According to WP:PORNBIO, the guidelines for notability as a pornographic actor are either
 * Winning multiple industry awards. The feminist porn awards are not "industry" awards, they are fringe to most of the pornography world
 * Starring in a revolutionary film in the pornography genre. There are a lot of other transexual porn performers before her.
 * Coverage in multiple, mainstream, sources. Obscure transexual magazines and feminist publishing companies do not count as mainstream media, and therefore, she doesn't seem to be very notable according to WP:PORNBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123chess456 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment on The Feminist Press source. Tobi Hill-Meyer is mentioned in the book 7 times. She did write a ten page chapter on transgender inclusion in pornography, yet that would probably qualify as an affiliate source. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment on Original Plumbing article. The article was an interview with Tobi Hill-Meyer. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment The Feminist Press is a very reputable scholarly press housed at the CUNY Graduate Center. Definitely a reputable source. Furthermore, it seems as if there is a page for the Feminist Porn Award, thus it seems to have passed muster elsewhere as a legitimate award.--Theredproject (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

 
 * weak keep, http://www.goodforher.com/fpa_2010 and http://www.goodforher.com/doing_it_ourselves_trans_women_porn_project and significant blogs Gregkaye (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete but weak delete, did not find much after reviewing 10 SERP pages on "web" setting, one mention on the "news" setting. That said, my sense is this person is important in this niche, so it is a reluctant vote on my part.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The "Feminist Porn Awards" are given by a single nn/unimportant retailer to promote products it sells; their man-bites-dog notability does not rise to the "well-known/significant" level required by the applicable SNGs. The cited goodforher.com sources are components of the retailer's promotional website and fail RS requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 02:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - Fails PORNBIO .– Davey 2010 •  (talk)  18:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with nominator and views expressed above. Finnegas (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2014 (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.