Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britney Amber

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. Main arguments for "keep" boil down to a. passing the GNG, which is disputed, and this addition being judged trivial, if I may paraphrase; and b. "won a notable award", but that notability is disputed with strong arguments. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Amber

Britney Amber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP lacking in reliable independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sources include interviews and award materials. The award listed (from NightMoves Award) is not significant and well known. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom, lacks independent reliable sources. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable actress who's won notable awards, meets PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NightMoves Award wins don't establish notability for WP:PORNBIO. Porn trade press coverage lacks depth. Mainstream coverage consists mainly of porn-star-tries-MMA passing mentions. Not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable actress who does not meet our inclusion criteria for pornographic actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are non-pornography sources - meets WP:GNG, two individual awards - one of the most known pornographic awards - meets WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 01:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Davey2010 and Subtropical-man. I added an additional reliable non-pornography source and expanded the article slightly.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Maxim may not be pornography, the source article provides no information about the article subject other than that she appeared in a short online promotional video (not a "special", whatever that means) for a porn studio she works for. That's not the sort of coverage that does much to establish notability or sustain a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails both PORNBIO and GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Won one of the oldest (in fact the third oldest) porn award in its highest category, Best Female Performer (which would be the equivalent of AVN's Female Performer of the Year). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that "third oldest" does not mean either well-known or significant, as required by PORNBIO; the claimed NightMoves Award is not an "industry award", as required by PORNBIO, but handed out by a giveaway magazine promoting central Florida strip clubs and the performers who work in them, and that consensus in PORNBIO discussions has never supported the notion that those awards conributed anything to notability. Not to mention the complete lack of independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that age means a lot in terms of assertiveness and recognition. I guess, you know all the usually failed tries of establashing a new award, usually called spammery by you? Nightmoves even differentiates between regional industry from Florida (which is actually no part of the article NightMoves Award) and national one and does not even try to mix their regional personalities with the national awards, which are given to well-known Los Angeles performers and not to Unknowns from Florida. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the age of the award does not mean anything. To rephrase from another AfD: Editors' opinions do not constitute evidence in and of itself that the award is notable enough to make the fact of winning it a valid notability claim in an article about a person. The latter most certainly does depend on the extent to which reliable sources which are independent of the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself do or don't treat the winning of that award as news — the extent to which an award makes its winners wikinotable because they won it is a factor of the extent to which the media do or don't devote their time and resources to creating news content about "so-and-so wins XBIZ award".. Source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Iron (2nd nomination). K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "does not mean anything" is absolute non-sense. It does not mean everything, however, the exceptional and rare age is of course very important. I could go back to an AfD which quoted a serious newspaper calling the NightMoves Award the third most important award in porn industry, but I won't as we don't need to spam this here with dozens of quotes and should instead accept that common knowledge. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The award itself may be notable, but this particular category is not. Nor does the awarding of the category generate sufficient coverage to help meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, SamWinchester can't "go back" to an old AFD because he's misremembered the quote. The claim was "third largest" as of 2002, and the source was a local newspaper. What "largest" means in this context isn't at all clear, and as I pointed out the first time that claim was advanced, the newspaper that was reporting on the event didn't even bother to report the names of any of the award winners -- a pretty damning signal that the awards themselves aren't significant. Note also that the claim has never been found sufficient to sustain a "keep" consensus. And, fiven the striking dearth of independent reliable sourcing, a marginal award claim is far outweighed by clear failure to satisfy GNG requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.