Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sara Jay

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  delete. The page has been deleted once by PROD, twice by AfD, at least five times by CSD, creation protected, and declined four times at AfC. The AfC itself has been deleted previously under G11. consensus within this discussion is that this draft be deleted. Notwithstanding the sockpuppet/meatpuppet farm that this discussion has drawn, the community has spoken. kelapstick(bainuu) 13:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sara Jay


I have previously declined the submission three times, as being not notable, including one time where I cited WP:PORNBIO, which she fails. I also cited the last AFD, where they decided that being in the Urban X Award Hall of Fame is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Two other users have also said that she is not notable, and this discussion on one of the user's talk pages stated the same thing as I did on my talk page, where I have been slandered because I did not accept it. The CSD was declined, but only because it wasn't a recreation of the previous material, but it was suggested that I go to MFD instead of approving it and immediately opening an AFD for this in the mainspace. Finally, it has been deleted eight times in the mainspace, so that is why I am unwilling to accept it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This editor is being vindictive to a newbie. There is ZERO attempt to actually help make sure that the article passes.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers.  There is simply a desire to delete at all cost and is NOT the right place for an article where the editor has taken offence to the author and refusing to approve an article.  "Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas".  There are specialized deletion procedures in place which can be used but Mr. Rutherford is determined not to use them, resorting to MFD.

I quote the reason for Kevin Rutherford gave for filing a quick delete in the first place''The user does not accept that this person does not pass PORNBIO and has been deleted three times in the mainspace. I have been falsely accused of bias multiple times, and I have tried to provide guidance to the user, but they cannot accept it. Not only is their insistence that she is notable disruptive, but it shows that they are unwilling to agree to consensus. If this CSD is declined, I will accept it and promptly AFD it, as there is no way that this passed any sort of notability guidelines.}}" In HIS words... he ''poured a bit of emotion into that deletion tag" (as mentioned on his talk page).

Having LOST the CSD at the urging of the community, the editor became frustrated and did NOT accept the article. Further evidence that he is acting out of anger he comes here instead. I asked for specificity when the page was deleted before, and got none. If an edit was minor... which one? I do think he is acting with bias. He has admitted such making the speedy deletion and on his talk page. Sara Jay is one of the most googled adult stars in the world. I bet he did not even google her... suggested conduct if you intend to help a newbie such as me fix an article rather than delete it.

He says, "It has been deleted... in the mainspace, so that is why I am unwilling to accept it." Respectfully the page has to rest on it's own merits. I have seen prior pages regarding Miss Jay, they were done usually with atrocious references and attempts at promotion. This is a different article. While I deem the Hall of Fame Award to be important, it is NOT the entire basis of the page. I do not believe an appropriate debate has ever taken place regarding the Urban X Hall of Fame. The Urban X Hall of Fame is one of kind. Recognition for interracial work - something that the AVN Awards & XRCO Awards do not focus on. Regardless, Non-notable people do not get on the Russell Brand show, get mentions on CNN and do not appear in multiple music vidoes and mainstream movies. It seems that around here as soon as editors nominate something for deletion a lot of people run and hide scaring away the authors. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

I suspect that Mr. Rutherford will now go and seek out like minded editors pass judgement. Unless YOU are in porn or have experience in porn I do not know you are qualified to actually pass judgment on the sufficiency of an award. Ilovepitts (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Lesser qualified pages can be seen all over Wikipedia such as - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Courtney_Cummz. No significant awards and per the request for deletion kept because she had done more than 100 movies (Sara Jay has more than 300). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikki_Six, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalia_Starr&action=history to name just a few Ilovepitts (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Ilovepitts (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Ilovepitts (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * without judging this particular article, because it is not a subject in a field I am competent to judge,, that we have "lesser qualified pages all over WP" is very likely true, but is not much of a argument. If we have pages on subjects that are insufficiently notable, we should either improve them to show notability , or remove them. They probably number in the tens or hundreds of thousands, and it will take us a while, but there is no reason why we should add to their number.  DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you DGG for admitting you are not qualified to judge the article. It was you who wrote to Mr. Rutherford on his talk page: "Unfortunately there's material in the submission about work done after the latest afd, so there is a possibility of notability enough to make G4 inapplicable. I think practice is that a non-speedyable afc goes to mfd" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ktr101). It should be stressed that Notability applies to 'Articles' (which Mr. Rutherford refuses to do despite his failed speedy deletion). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability stresses - "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." and "Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject.... attract editors knowledgeable about that field." Mr. Rutherford's biography (the editor proposing the deletion) reveals no expertise in adult or adult awards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ktr101. To merit deletion, subjects must, per notability standards be "clearly not notable". Here, just as the XRCO Awards, Wikipedia deemed 'The Urban X Awards' notable enough to have it's own article, unlike some other adult awards like The Nightmoves Awards or the Sex Awards. It is not for editors who have zero knowledge of adult to arbitrarily assume 'that award means nothing'. Any prior discussion should be disregarded because there has never been a disclosure of any editor expertise. This is a standalone proposed article with significantly more than just one Hall of Fame Award. It should be noted that the proposed deleting editor, Mr. Rutherford, has misplaced animus to me which I have asked him to apologize for on his talk page (which he has ignored). He is acting out of anger rather than the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia.Ilovepitts (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete please stop wasting our time. Gigs (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. It is reasonable to allow several tries for an AFC submission, but this has gone on long enough and is clearly going nowhere. JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

'Stop wasting our time' ... thank you for reinforcing the us against them attitude against a relative newbie. I had nothing to do with prior articles and I find the kurt comment with zero basis to be rude. As for JohnCD ... again, I had NOTHING to do with prior articles and there are tons of new citations. As to BOTH comments... unless BOTH users display SOME basis to knowledge or expertise in the adult industry about awards or anything related to adult, the comments are lacking in foundation or basis. Ilovepitts (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Sara Jay is one of the best known stars in all of adult and I am surprised notability is an issue.Vickyvette (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * SPI filed related to this comment. Gigs (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G4. AfC is not a holding pen for deleted matetial. This has been on AfD for three times already (one of them was dubiously closed as keep against majority vote and no supportive arguments to explain why consensus should differ from vote count). jni (delete)...just not interested 18:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Seriously, enough is enough. The AFC declines were appropriate and volunteers should not have to put up with things like these. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Put up with what? The editor who decided to do the speedy delete and then this delete request says that I accused him of being a racist and a homophobe. Those exact words. I did ask Mr. Rutherford if he had issues with Sara Jay shooting interracial. How that was turned into calling someone a racist and homophobe I do not know. I asked for an apology on his talk page - he ignored me. I urge whoever reviews this matter TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHAT WAS SAID ON MR. RUTHERFORD'S TALK PAGE. Just because an editor has a bias against a particular article is NOT grounds to out of had delete a page. Why did I ask if he has issues with interracial? Because one of the users voting against Sara Jay on another draft stated ''Deny. Because She shoots interracial''. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sara_Jay_%283rd_nomination%29.

FACT - the last delete was done in 2011. FACT - since 2011 there have been appearances on major television shows, videos and other accomplishments. FACT - NOT ONE of the people here who have voted against this page have stated WHAT in the page is not sufficient.

Is Wikipedia really a place where porn stars are deleted out of hand unless they have an AVN Award? 10plus years, 300 movies, a Hall of Fame Award, appearances on major television shows, mainstream movies and videos by now should be enough. It has been THREE YEARS since the page was deleted. Why are people offended that someone decided to do the job right. Note - no one challenges ANYTHING on the page about the references or facts. Ilovepitts (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - As a personal friend of Sara Jay, I find her to be a deep and warm and caring person. She has worked hard to get where she is and has earned numerous awards in her chosen industry. She is notable in the industry for her accomplishments. If someone doesn't want to review her page, they are free to go somewhere else. Personally, this seems to smack of censorship. I never thought Wikipedia would stoop to censorship. There was nothing vile or dirty or offensive on her page. I don't know all of the acronyms and legal hoopla people are using, but I know that Sara deserves to have her page, as a notable person in her chosen industry. ElPasoWalt (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Sara Jay is talented and devoted to her fans and to her craft. She deserves to be included in the rank and file of other performers who work hard in the adult industry. I implore you to be fair and reinstate SaraJay's page.  She is notable to thousands of her fans and that devotion is worth her place within Wikipedia..Thank youMstang1234 (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep So, let me get this straight....a woman who has been in the adult entertainment industry for 14 years, created more than 300 film credits, has won numerous awards for her performances, and is one of the most prolific and popular adult entertainers on social media, is somehow undeserving of her own Wiki page because...."We just don't like her"?? "She does Black men"?? "She's too slutty"?? "She doesn't do anal on screen??" (The notion that she is "unnotable" is simply a bad evasion and an unfunny joke.) Funny, but there are plenty of porn performers whom have never won AVN's who have their own Wiki pages, and I don't see the reasons, rather than pure spite (and maybe just a tad bit of racism) why Sara Jay shouldn't have her page reinstated. Anthony JKenn (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep As the Spanish & German Wikipedia sites still have the well known pornstar Ms Sara Jay available, it looks like the men who decide to delete her english Wikipedia site aren't impartial. The reasons they stated are way too selective & doesn't cover the market niche in which Ms Sara Jay is popular. Ms Sara Jay has more than 415,000 followers on twitter (that's more than some mainstream stars have, BTW), she runs her own youtube site (without being deleted)...etc, etc...thus, she IS a notable fact in the porn industry...as well as here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a site of facts, no matter what moral background. Carl goldfinger (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I Don't understand the Logic of removing Sara Jay. She is one of the most popular and well know starts in adult entertainment .She has over 400k followers on twitter has appeared in over 300 movie and  has a very popular you tube site.She is one of the most recognized Starts in the adult industry, an industry which Forbes magazine list as having from 1- to 14 billion dollars a year in total revenue' that sound pretty relevant to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handcock610 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep 14 years, 300+ films I would say those are 2 very good reasons she should have her own wikipedia page. Not even the president has that job for more than 8. I would call her notable.Dave45auto (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment to closing admin I have added above single-purpose accounts created for purpose of voting 'keep' here to CheckUser request at Sockpuppet investigations/Ilovepitts. jni (delete)...just not interested 09:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment to closing admin The sockpuppet issue is a fraud and I demand an apology from JNI. Is it my fault that REAL people who have opinions just as valid as anyone else have weighed in on this issue?  Getting back to the issue at hand - there is NO ATTEMPT BY ANYONE VOTING AGAINST TO ACTUALLY EXAMINE THE CHANGES TO THE PAGE over the last three years.  None of the references are challenged. I also urge the admin to look at the attacks on me by the editor who opened this page, that there was NO basis for the claim I accused anyone of being a racist or homophobe and that at a minimum, the page should be allowed to go to the level of a public.  None of the people who are voting against have any experience in adult and the Hall of Fame Award is from an Award recognized on Wikipedia as being notable enough for it's own page.Ilovepitts (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Like hell. You've said several times that Kevin's actions are motivated by some sort of "bias". Right here you insinuate that he is racist, saying "Is it because she does interracial scenes as opposed to working for Vivid that causes you issues?" -- without a shred of evidence to support your slime. And right here in this discussion you tell an outright lie about User:Curb Chain, deliberately misquoting them to make them appear racist. This phony accusation of racism is a new trope of the porn promoters, and needs to rejected resoundingly/ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And let us not forget when I became a right wing fundamentalist and am indirectly told to stop trying to delete it because I admitted to not wanting to tell the user to shove it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry, but the prose is the same with all of the suspicious users. You attack others for disagreeing with you and then resort to sockpuppeting with a sleu of keep votes in order to get your way, all at once. I'm sorry, but there is no action more obvious than this. Also, I never attacked you. You accused me of disliking interracial pornography and bisexual actions. In terms of the supposed false accusations, I really do not give a shit about what people do, as that is up to their own prerogative. We agreed years ago that the hall of fame was not notable, so I doubt that it has changed since then. In the end, you are a troll and attack everyone who does not agree with you, including attacking the integrity and motivations of others, so I fail to see why we should be giving you serious credence, unfortunately. Honestly, if it is approved, it will be deleted again, based on eight prior decisions to the same effect, so I was trying to spare you the cost of an AFD when I declined it multiple times. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. ilovepitts/vickyvette/Db54 has a history of sbuse and promotional editing, and this is just another example. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per G4 per User:Jni. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. User:Jni is right. Not notable when deleted in 2011 and still not notable in 2014. Significant coverage by multiple reliable sources does not appear to exist. The few reliable sources cited in the article lack depth. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep So, apparently, HullaballooWolfowitz has deemed himself to be the sole judge, jury, and executioner of what constitutes a "sockpuppet", of whom is "notable" enough to justify a Wiki page on a page that is supposed to be "open source", and now, while accusing the defenders of Sara Jay of engaging in "sockpuppetry", allows his own crew to rehash the same charges and personally insult his/jni's/Kevin Rutherford's critics. Unbelievable. Also, I should note that I am no one's "sockpuppet" nor am I in any way related to ilovepitts; my opposition to this blatant censorship stands on its own merits. There are performers with far less credits than Sara Jay has that have approved Wiki pages; and no one has challenged her Spanish or German-based Wiki's either. Either Wikipedia is allowing antiporn moles to undermine it's mission of open access with arbitrary personal vendettas, or they seriously need to update their criteria for porn performers to adapt to modern day social media. Sara Jay has earned the right to a Wiki page; this is simply madness and antiporn spite to deny her this. Anthony JKenn (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Ahhh...Mr. Rutherford?? Unless you have solid evidence that I or anyone else defending Sara Jay are merely "sockpuppets" of ilovepitts rather than independent people giving their own opinion, I strongly suggest you take it easy. I could just as easily accuse your crew of being sockpuppets, too. themselves....but I don't. Anthony JKenn (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment From Mr. Rutherford the 'editor' seeking the deletion: accusing me of 'slime' ... swearing... and calling me a 'troll'. That is atrocious conduct unbecoming a supposed 'editor' and he should be reported. He states: 'You accused me of disliking interracial pornography and bisexual actions'. That is quite different from his previous representation that I called him 'a racist and homophobe'. Note, all I asked is whether the fact Sara Jay shoots interracial as opposed to Vivid causes him issues. 1. To to see if he understands that the AVN Awards does not cover the interracial movie business of adult like the Urban X Awards and 2. to see if he did have a bias like one of the voters before. An easy no would have sufficed. I in fact apologized to Mr. Rutherford if he was offended by the question. Instead.... Mr. Rutherford blew it up and filed a speedy delete with no basis and admitted anger. Mr. Rutherford also said if he lost the speedy delete this article would have been APPROVED. I guess THAT is not a manoeuver we are now here. I ask Wikipedia to consider if Mr. Rutherford is engaging in disruptive editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing, manoevers designed to reach only one goal without ever attempting to work in good faith.

As for Mr. Hullaballoo ... he is a known anti porn crusader with an agenda. He is in fights on almost every adult page with other users. His opinion is biased. I also think Mr. Hullaballoo should be admonished for saying 'like hell'.Ilovepitts (talk) 11:50, 12 April 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.