Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanilla DeVille


 * 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. I think I can give you all a clue why this has remained open for so long. One reason is that a lot of admins and other users are weary over the constant battles related to pornography-related content. The other reason is that several users have suggested incubation as solution and a lot of admins don't even know what that is. The reason for that is that Article Incubator is a well-intentioned but clearly failing project. Most of the 90+ articles currently there have been sitting for years with no substantive improvements, and in fact there is a discussion among the few particpants there about admitting defeat and shutting it down. So, incubation is not really a realistic option anymore, but I'd be happy to perform a good old fashioned WP:USERFY of this if anyone wants to try and take another crack at it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Vanilla DeVille

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PeterWesco (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SELF - Many sources are interviews, website, etc.
 * WP:RS - Videos clips, interviews, IMdB, etc.
 * WP:PORNSTAR - Nominations are mainly for website.  Notability is not inherited.    Nominations for the website are not nominations for the subject of the article
 * WP:SPIP - Self promotion piece tinged with WP:COI.
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. As I stated when I contested the prod:

This article was prodded with the reasoning being: FAILS: WP:PORNSTAR FAILS: WP:SELF FAILS: WP:RS FAILS: WP:N Self sourced sources - Interviews, personal website, etc.. Fails notability for WP:PORNSTAR. Fails for depth of coverage in the remaining sources.

I'm not exactly sure how she fails WP:RS, but failing WP:SELF alone isn't enough for deletion. And as for WP:PORNSTAR, she does pass that because she "has been nominated for [a well-known and significant industry award] several times". All the nominations aren't notable by Wikipedia standards, but the 2008 XBIZ Web Babe/Starlet of the Year award and the 2013 AVN MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year award definitely are (not to mention the 2013 XBIZ MILF Performer of the Year award).
 * Also, most of the awards may be website-related, but all of them aren't (as the preceding statement indicates).  Erpert  Who is this guy? 01:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete more or less per nom. The sourcing is just awful; website award noms don't contribute to performer notability (especially when handed out like candy by a PR business which openly acknowledged its nominations are generated by its clients!), and no more than one of the remaining noms falls outside the group of insignificant tinfoil trophies that don't contribute to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. The nominations are insignificant; if she were repeatedly nominated for notable ones, or even won one or two, that'd be a closer call. The coverage is far from WP:GNG quality, failing mostly reliability and independence. JFHJr (㊟) 03:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

**Speedy delete? Really? The article looked nothing like that when it was first created (by me, btw, not the subject's husband; in fact, there's a COIN discussion going on about that). Also, why would you clean up the article and then suddenly want it deleted?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:PORNBIO. Aside from her scene and website nominations, she has been nominated for AVN's MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year award and XBIZ's Best Actress and MILF Performer of the Year awards. I also think that the XBIZ Web Babe/Starlet of the Year and AVN Web Starlet of the Year awards are performer awards, not website awards like MILF Site of the Year, Best Solo Girl Website, Best Porn Star Website and Performer Site of the Year, which apparently don't count as performer awards so I'm not even going to get into that discussion. The first three awards I mentioned are more than enough to prove she meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Apparently this article needs to be improved because it "appears to be written like an advertisement" and I think the solution is to improve it, not delete it. --Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment currently, the article is so terrible to even be eligible for a speedy deletion under G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). The subject appears to pass WP:PORNBIO per award noms and even for her mainstream works, so an article about her is generally acceptable, but this article is plain and simple a BLP nightmare, written like an advertisement and almost enterely based on self-made claims in unreliable sources (including forum posts, lol!). Eg, the claim that she posed for Playboy could be a good point for her notability and it is apparently well-sourced, as it is referenced by four sources: well, the sources are 1) her official website 2) an interview for this website, that is far from being minimally reliable 3) her blog 4) her official website again (lol!). Other things are simply false: "In 2011, fans named her one of the top MILF performers in the industry.": looking at the first source (the second one is her website, as usual) a blog (not a generic "fans") selected her for a poll about milfs. The result of the poll is not even known. So, as per G11, an article about her "need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". She could be notable, but the article fails two things that are more important, neutrality and verifiability. Cavarrone (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I reread your statement, it kind of makes sense, but you should be aware that User:Stewiedv, the subject's husband, did not originally create the article; I did, and it looked nothing like the way it looks now before he came along (in fact, after I reverted his non-neutral additions without success, I then took the matter to WP:COIN). Reverting back to a version without all the COI-pushing would fare much better than deletion; the only reason I won't do so is because Stewiedv keeps accusing me of trying to own the article (even long after I left the COIN conversation).  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So, I removed the vote, but the point remains. Frankly, the only way to fit her biography to BLP standards is remove almost enterely all her biography. As I demostrated above, what the subject said/wrote about herself is not reliable. And the Playboy claim was not added by her husband. Cavarrone (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest adding the additional nomination Rebecca1990 found.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I realize that COI prevents me from fairly voting on this subject, but I would like to clear up some inaccuracies posted above. User:Erpert loves to post about me all over this site (I expect I will be mentioned in his holiday newsletter as well), but he also likes to twist the facts, and apparently doesn't realize that his posts are time-stamped and viewable by all. The truth of the matter is, he created a poorly written and badly sourced article, similar to several of his other works that have also been proposed for deletion. Being a new contributor, and at first unfamiliar with all of the procedures here, I tried to correct the article and made the mistake of following his example in the types of sources used (including using many of the same sources he cited originally). I agree that the article needs major revisions, but reverting back to his original article will not make it better or compliant.  I believe that there is enough evidence to keep and rewrite the article, and I am willing to provide information and assist other editors in any way I can within the COI guidelines (I have refrained from making any changes since the issue was first submitted to COIN).  As for the Playboy claim, Vanilla was featured in various photos in the July 2004 issue, on pages 74-81, which was shot on location in Las Vegas and at the old Playboy headquarters in Chicago, by photographer George Georgiou: Playboy Statistics Knowledgebase. Stewiedv (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You seriously need to stop. When I refused to be part of your battle on COIN, that doesn't mean you should try to re-ignite the battle here. And don't think you can get away with trying to blame your COI mistakes on "following ['my'] example". I simply mentioned your name to clarify something to Cavarrone; nothing more.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 18:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I stayed out of this debate until you brought me into it, using my name in an attempt to defend another one of your bad articles. You started the battle on COIN, as well as everywhere else you posted about it after refusing to discuss things otherwise, and started up again here when it had no relevance to the existing comments. You refuse to let this go, but instead keep posting about it in new places when you don't get the response you want from the community in previous locations. If you want me to stop replying to your inaccurate posts, then stop citing me to defend yourself. I took responsibility for my actions, and it's time that you did the same. Stewiedv (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Incubate As Rebecca1990 points out the subject does appear to be notable BUT there are significant POV and sourcing issues. Take it out of mainspace and give editors an opportunity to get it fixed up. J04n(talk page) 12:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Incubate per J04n and my reasoning above, it sounds a good compromise. Cavarrone (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't persuade of notability. Not sure what Incubate means, but if it means take it out of mainspace and work it in userspace, the author can do that anyway.  The article doesn't even provide her real name.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * About incubation, read WP:INCUBATE: " Articles in incubation are "in limbo" - they have been deleted from article namespace, but are still part of Wikipedia, awaiting a decision to be moved back into the article namespace (mainspace), or be deleted completely from all Wikipedia namespace." and " Incubation is a "soft deletion" process whereby problematic articles are removed from mainspace but remain accessible by non-admins so they can be worked on. Incubated articles are automatically "noindexed", meaning they won't show up in search engines.". About real names of adult actors, WP:BLPPRIVACY applies here. Cavarrone (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, adult film stars' real names are very hard to find in reliable sources (IMDb notwithstanding); also, not having that listed definitely isn't a valid reason for deletion. (BTW, why is this still open? It's been almost two weeks.)  Erpert  Who is this guy? 08:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Article's subject does not meet WP:PORNBIO; nominations are not for a "well-known and significant industry award". Even without the notability concerns, once the self-promotion and obvious conflicts of interest are removed there's not much left.  Mini  apolis  12:31, 3 May 2013 (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.