Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaniity


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Vaniity

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Of the references currently in the article, #1 is a fairly substantial profile by The Canadian (agoracosmopolitan.com), a website which features (a) wild conspiracy theorising on UFOs and aliens, 9/11 trutherism, HIV/AIDS, vaccines, autism, esoteric religions, politics, etc., and (b) articles on transgender issues, sexuality, and sex work. (Check out this archived front page, selected at random:) I am aware that reliability depends on context and that a source may be reliable for some topics and not others, but am inclined to think that the website as a whole lacks responsible editorial oversight. I've just realised that that profile is largely plagiarised from Wikipedia: compare (published in March 2007) with the WP article in February 2007.

The other references are primary sources such as interviews, self-published content, databases, and award rosters; please note that porn industry awards no longer count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only tabloid coverage and listicle blurbs. Cheers, gnu 57 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Updated 22:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57  21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57  21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. gnu 57  21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * comment Two AVN Awards, induction in AVN Hall of Fame, and Tranny Award for lifetime achievement is more than sufficient to establish notability. Policy based arguement: the award section makes the subject pass WP:ANYBIO. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy and guidelines say no such thing. Porn awards no longer count toward notability now that WP:PORNBIO has been deprecated, and notability claims per WP:BASIC, WP:ENT or WP:ANYBIO must be attributable to independent reliable sources . Winning porn awards rarely satisfy that requirement. A quick look at the article shows that most of the sources are junk, as the nominator states. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:ANYBIO states: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Two notable porn industry awards makes the subject pass first requirement. One hall of fame induction from same notable organisation, and one "lifetime achievement" award from another notable awards makes the subject "sort of" pass the second requirement. I am not sure what non-porn industry award can be won by a pornstar, but certainly not Turing award. If one is expecting a noble or Turing for a pornstar, then yes, the subject fails notability. We absolutely shouldn't use WP:COMMONSENSE because the subject hasnt won Turing award. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with this argument is that there was explicit acknowledgement in guidelines that these awards constituted notability and then that consensus was explicitly revoked in an RfC. It's hard not to conclude that a consensus that those awards don't constitute notability in their own guideline as also meaning that there's consensus that they don't constitute general notability as "a well-known and significant award or honor" either, since that would defeat the purpose of the RfC in the first place. I'm conflicted in these cases: I think quite a few of these people, if you did an objective assessment (say, if you were going to create your own publication), probably notable, but reliable third-party source coverage of pornography-related topics is as a whole so abysmal that reliable source coverage just doesn't exist here. If the most we can say about them is that they won a porn award, cited to the awards site, and we can't find anything else about them in reliable sources apart from a handful of random facts usually also cited to questionable source, I think I lean to the position that they probably shouldn't have articles. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Achievement for WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENT requires acknowledgment from an independent and credible source. Winning a porn award generally does not get the performer significant coverage from independent reliable sources. That's why PORNBIO was deprecated in March 2019 and why every appeal to ANYBIO since then has failed at AfD. Even the "Oscars of Porn" gets independent RS coverage mainly for the AVN Expo.  That coverage generally does not cover award winners. As for the Turing Award, the award and its winners generally get RS coverage, as a cursory GNews search will show.  Commercial industry awards, porn or mainstream, are generally industry self-promotion.  There are a rare few that get independent RS coverage as achievements.  Porn industry awards are not among those few. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bit of a troubling rationale for these choices, because there are plenty of fields in which absolutely significant awards aren't exciting that they'll get substantial media coverage, and I would be vehemently resistant if someone tried applying that logic on those articles. I feel like a better differentiation is that usually those people still have WP:RSs of some sort about them, and the award is a good sign of their particular significance; the same might well have been true here except that the general sourcing is utterly absent. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for your input guys. You see, you've presented my exact thougts. People from the porn industry rarely get attention of mainstream media. After deprecation of PORNBIO, there were many AfDs of pornstars. But I didnt comment there. However, this subject has won two awards for performances. I agree its not a big deal, and we can overlook that (per the arguments in deprecation of PORNBIO). But hall of fame induction, and lifetime achievement (from different organisations) is a big deal. If it was just one of them, I dont know, but two does establish notability. This is the general reason why we have SNGs in first place. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A quick count shows that 15 members of the AVN Hall of Fame have been deleted from Wikipedia since PORNBIO was deprecated, and one, Janet Jacme, was deleted shortly before PORNBIO was deprecated. After 13 years of PORNBIO, the new consensus is that porn industry honors are not enough to excuse subjects from needing good references, despite the systemic bias. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are enough claims to notability that its plausible sufficient coverage in reliable sources exists if someone had access to the right sources, but a thorough online search turned up precisely nada. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. Adult industry awards no longer count towards notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting subject, but there's not enough to satisfy WP:BASIC nor is there sufficient evidence of passing WP:ENT. While the publisher of the Agora Cosmopolitan article cited meets the WP:RS standard, the article sources too much of its content from the subject to be considered independent. It's more than most porn bios get, but that's not enough to establish notability. Other coverage, cited in the article or found in independent searching, is pretty much what the nominator states. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A major chunk of the Agora Cosmopolitan article was copied directly from Wikipedia: for instance, the line Vaniitys' appearance is extremely feminine and even her voice is feminine(which is natural), She claims not to have had any femininity surgeries. was added to the WP article in 2006, and appears word-for-word in the 2007 AC article. Cheers, gnu 57 23:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Vaniity fails notability guidelines by a wider margin than I thought. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2020 (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.