1027:. Please note that PORNBIO says, "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times" - neither is true (she was nominated for three different awards, which does not qualify. Admittedly a technicality, but remember that PORNBIO is not really a standard - it's under discussion and in dispute). It also says, "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent." None is true, or at least none are supported by the article or its references. It also says, "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." This is ALSO not true, or at least not supported by the article. I think she doesn't meet WP:GNG, either.
865:- my heart bleeds for this individual but the only discernible purpose of this article is a shameless promotion of a foreign commercial interest. This can easily be evidence by the fact that this apparent bio excludes the individual's name, only packaging branding information and promotions of adult only product. Last but not least the brand in question is of sub standard quality having failed to receive any industry endorsements from the AVN. I would suggest removing the article on the grounds that this is a non notable sub-standard brand and is deceptive and manipulative to try to include it in wikipedia. In this case none of the sources are WP:RS sources as they are tainted by commercial/promotional concerns and cannot be creadibly used to demonstrate WP:V.
89:. Those in favour of deletion argued that Monroe does not meet the GNG, a point never substantially challenged by those wanting to keep the article. PORNBIO was difficult, because there was not even agreement that is was an adequate guideline. Nevertheless, the consensus seemed to be that, whether or not the guideline is useful, Monroe does not pass it. The notability of certain awards was contentious and perhaps not fully resolved; however, those favouring deletion argued that the the nominations received are not sufficient to pass PORNBIO. Thus, the consensus was to delete.
1006:. None of the sources support notability. None contain independent coverage in prose. The interviews are promotion, and primary, and first person coverage. YouTube is not an acceptable source for supporting notability. Several sources support facts, but we are not a database. Sources on the awards say nothing in the form of commentary on the person. Three nominations and no wins for industry-promoting awards is a very weak claim for notability. There is no sign that any other reputable source has taken notice. The references are little more than a link farm. --
645:. Article includes no reliably sourced biographical content, and, aside from the nominations listings, is sourced entirely from unreliable/promotional/vendor pages. Subject has only one AVN nomination, despite comments otherwise here, and that in a downlevel category with no discernible standards -- that the porn industry is now declaring 30-year-olds to be "milfs"/"cougars"/older women is just ersatz marketing that lacks encyclopedic significance.
31:
481:- Delete votes have flawed understanding of what makes an award notable. AVN is only part of and promotes the industry in the sense that they report on the industry as a trade journal and as porn critics. Besides the nominations passes the current version of PORNBIO and also under the proposed tightened version PORNBIO that is currently being discussed on
721:
for me. The subject of the article not only (obviously) passes the actual PORNBIO but even passes its tightened version that is under discussion in these days (and that seems to have consensus) in reason of the multiple noms in acting/performing categories (no scene award nor group award categories).
684:
Erpert, the HW edit was correct and his edit summary is almost clear. A producer/director that declares that an actress that is under exclusive contract with her is the best actress in the kind of stuff that the same Nica Noelle produces is clearly a not-independent claim.
627:
and does not appear to have a reasonable chance of being saved via the "sources are likely out there somewhere" argument, then it should be deleted. The practice of using the
Knowledge (XXG) as free advertising for every two-bit wannabe starlet must be brought to an end.
885:- Not the subject of multiple, substantial, independent pieces of published coverage in so-called reliable sources. The so-called AVN awards are of interest only to the AVN and should no more provide a free pass here than the
799:
Interesting contribution history there; a contributor of nothing but one-liner "per user x" and "those delete votes suck", never really providing an actual reason for retention just as the entrty for this AfD is empty. A
199:
456:
296:
XBIZ is a non-notable website? Since when? By the way, I find it highly interesting that you are !voting "delete" in the exact same way in the same articles that
Hipocrite is bringing to AfD.
502:, no independent coverage outside the narrow sphere of the industry's self-promotion machinery, for which the author evidently wishes to create an outpost on Knowledge (XXG).
193:
154:
279:
40:
436:
159:
924:
AVN awards are still notable under PORNBIO. Notability is based on what the guidelines are, not according to what the voter thinks they should be.
370:
So I made a mistake. At least I'm still acting in good faith instead of bringing articles to AfD just because I have a dispute with the creator.
482:
275:
433:
556:
506:
17:
1073:
127:
122:
131:
763:
650:
553:
503:
114:
214:
181:
1055:
69:
46:
646:
971:
standards. Only has 3 nominations, which isn't nearly close enough to overlook that she's never won an award. --
490:
175:
782:
1036:
1032:
1015:
998:
981:
978:
953:
933:
915:
898:
877:
851:
833:
813:
794:
769:
731:
707:
694:
679:
654:
637:
611:
584:
559:
543:
524:
509:
494:
470:
448:
424:
407:
403:
378:
365:
347:
330:
304:
291:
262:
239:
171:
93:
415:
3 AVN nominations is sufficient notability. Yes industry awards, but so are oscars, grammys, tonys, etc.
1051:
873:
287:
118:
65:
552:
Then that tightened version is still ridiculously out of touch with project-wide standards elsewhere.
994:
221:
968:
904:
839:
620:
599:
569:
270:
All sources are non-notable porn websites (attempts by the porn industry to give itself publicity).
249:
86:
1011:
758:
727:
690:
486:
361:
326:
235:
207:
110:
102:
741:
573:
420:
925:
825:
786:
1028:
973:
949:
894:
847:
539:
466:
444:
399:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1050:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
868:
609:
283:
274:
is a promotional award by porn industry. WP:PORNBIO is too lax and it's under discussion in
801:
624:
318:
187:
82:
990:
929:
829:
790:
1007:
809:
753:
723:
686:
633:
357:
322:
231:
1067:
416:
90:
568:, perhaps. And the article is not going to be deleted simply because you don't like
945:
890:
843:
535:
462:
440:
148:
824:
You're a jerk. It's becoming more and more obvious that this needs to be closed.
604:
744:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
805:
629:
271:
659:
If you were paying attention, you'd notice that she has one AVN nomination
667:
even supposed to mean? BTW, it isn't cool to delete an entire section of
989:. The sources are insufficient to establish notability under the GNG.
699:
But how do we know she was under contract at the time Noelle said that?
248:
Bad-faith nomination, you didn't notify the creator (me) of this, and
230:
A totally NN pornstar - does not even meet the not-guildeline PORNBIO
889:
awards should provide a free pass to minor shoe company executives.
276:
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#PORNBIO:_yes_or_no.3F_.28maybe.29
623:
alone simply cannot sustain an article. If it does not meet the
1044:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
25:
671:
material to make it look as though the person isn't notable.
457:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
907:. She passes it (in fact, she passed the old version).
664:
353:
144:
140:
136:
206:
751:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →
81:. The discussion seemed to focus on two guidelines:
321:. Shocker, then, that people are going to show up.
220:
72:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1058:). No further edits should be made to this page.
534:Passes the proposed tightened version PORNBIO.
8:
455:Note: This debate has been included in the
454:
317:You notified the world about this afd on
483:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (people)
432:Note: This debate has been added to the
722:Also passes the ANYBIO#1 requirements.
663:two XBIZ nominations. And what is this
45:For an explanation of the process, see
781:. All the delete votes are based on
398:per Hipocrite/nom and Enric Naval. --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
838:In shorthand, we might call this a
903:Carrite, please read the revamped
804:in spirit if not in technicality.
24:
282:, which has similar problems) --
41:deletion review on 2013 August 8
29:
47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
785:or otherwise faulty reasoning.
1:
1090:
967:. Simply doesn't meet the
680:23:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
655:16:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
638:05:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
612:13:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
585:05:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
560:11:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
544:11:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
525:10:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
510:09:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
495:00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
471:19:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
449:19:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
425:15:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
408:15:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
379:06:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
366:18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
348:16:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
331:10:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
305:09:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
292:08:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
263:06:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
240:19:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
1074:Pages at deletion review
1047:Please do not modify it.
1037:02:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
94:18:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
61:Please do not modify it.
1016:11:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
999:21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
982:01:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
954:20:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
944:Abject failure of GNG.
934:15:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
916:17:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
899:15:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
878:14:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
852:15:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
834:15:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
814:13:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
795:13:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
770:01:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
732:07:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
708:07:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
695:07:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
434:WikiProject Pornography
335:Enric put in his vote
647:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
602:and MorbidThoughts.
253:is still a guideline.
354:06:36, 26 April 2012
572:, and neither will
914:
772:
706:
678:
583:
523:
473:
460:
437:list of deletions
377:
346:
303:
280:Janet Mason's AfD
261:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
1081:
1049:
976:
913:
911:
876:
871:
768:
766:
761:
756:
750:
746:
705:
703:
677:
675:
607:
582:
580:
522:
520:
461:
451:
376:
374:
345:
343:
302:
300:
260:
258:
225:
224:
210:
162:
152:
134:
63:
33:
32:
26:
1089:
1088:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1056:deletion review
1045:
974:
909:
867:
866:
764:
759:
754:
752:
739:
701:
673:
603:
578:
518:
431:
372:
341:
298:
256:
167:
158:
125:
109:
106:
77:The result was
70:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1087:
1085:
1077:
1076:
1066:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1019:
1018:
1001:
984:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
937:
936:
921:
920:
919:
918:
880:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
842:argument, eh?
819:
818:
817:
816:
783:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
775:
774:
773:
748:
747:
736:
735:
734:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
640:
614:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
547:
546:
529:
528:
527:
497:
487:Morbidthoughts
475:
474:
452:
428:
427:
410:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
310:
309:
308:
307:
265:
228:
227:
164:
105:
100:
98:
75:
74:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1086:
1075:
1072:
1071:
1069:
1059:
1057:
1053:
1048:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1002:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
985:
983:
980:
979:
977:
970:
966:
963:
962:
955:
951:
947:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
935:
931:
927:
923:
922:
917:
912:
906:
902:
901:
900:
896:
892:
888:
887:Footwear News
884:
881:
879:
875:
870:
864:
861:
860:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
836:
835:
831:
827:
823:
822:
821:
820:
815:
811:
807:
803:
798:
797:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:
777:
776:
771:
767:
762:
757:
749:
745:
743:
738:
737:
733:
729:
725:
720:
717:
709:
704:
698:
697:
696:
692:
688:
683:
682:
681:
676:
670:
666:
662:
658:
657:
656:
652:
648:
644:
641:
639:
635:
631:
626:
622:
618:
615:
613:
610:
606:
601:
597:
594:
593:
586:
581:
575:
571:
567:
564:According to
563:
562:
561:
558:
555:
551:
550:
549:
548:
545:
541:
537:
533:
530:
526:
521:
516:
513:
512:
511:
508:
505:
501:
498:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
477:
476:
472:
468:
464:
458:
453:
450:
446:
442:
438:
435:
430:
429:
426:
422:
418:
414:
411:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:
393:
380:
375:
369:
368:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
350:
349:
344:
338:
334:
333:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
306:
301:
295:
294:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
266:
264:
259:
254:
251:
247:
244:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
223:
219:
216:
213:
209:
205:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
173:
170:
169:Find sources:
165:
161:
156:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
124:
120:
116:
112:
111:Elexis Monroe
108:
107:
104:
103:Elexis Monroe
101:
99:
96:
95:
92:
88:
84:
80:
73:
71:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1046:
1043:
1029:Marikafragen
1024:
1003:
986:
972:
964:
908:
886:
882:
862:
778:
740:
718:
700:
672:
668:
665:edit summary
660:
642:
616:
595:
577:
565:
531:
517:
514:
499:
478:
412:
400:Sonicyouth86
395:
371:
340:
339:I did that.
336:
297:
267:
255:
252:
246:Strong keep.
245:
229:
217:
211:
203:
196:
190:
184:
178:
168:
97:
78:
76:
60:
57:
36:
352:Falsehood.
284:Enric Naval
278:. (same as
194:free images
991:Eluchil404
975:NINTENDUDE
969:WP:PORNBIO
905:WP:PORNBIO
840:WP:ILIKEIT
621:WP:PORNBIO
600:WP:PORNBIO
570:WP:PORNBIO
250:WP:PORNBIO
87:WP:PORNBIO
1052:talk page
1008:SmokeyJoe
724:Cavarrone
687:Cavarrone
554:Fut.Perf.
504:Fut.Perf.
463:• Gene93k
441:• Gene93k
358:Hipocrite
323:Hipocrite
272:AVN award
232:Hipocrite
66:talk page
1068:Category
1054:or in a
742:Relisted
417:Gaijin42
155:View log
91:ItsZippy
68:or in a
946:Carrite
891:Carrite
844:Carrite
669:sourced
536:Epbr123
200:WP refs
188:scholar
128:protect
123:history
1025:Delete
1004:Delete
987:Delete
965:Delete
910:Erpert
883:Delete
863:Delete
802:WP:SPA
702:Erpert
674:Erpert
643:Delete
625:WP:GNG
617:Delete
605:Dismas
579:Erpert
519:Erpert
500:Delete
396:Delete
373:Erpert
342:Erpert
337:before
319:WP:ANI
299:Erpert
268:Delete
257:Erpert
172:Google
132:delete
83:WP:GNG
79:delete
926:SPNic
826:SPNic
787:SPNic
760:music
515:What?
215:JSTOR
176:books
160:Stats
149:views
141:watch
137:links
16:<
1033:talk
1012:talk
995:talk
950:talk
930:talk
895:talk
874:talk
848:talk
830:talk
810:talk
806:Tarc
791:talk
779:Keep
728:talk
719:Keep
691:talk
651:talk
634:talk
630:Tarc
598:per
596:Keep
574:this
540:talk
532:Keep
491:talk
479:Keep
467:talk
445:talk
421:talk
413:keep
404:talk
362:talk
327:talk
288:talk
236:talk
208:FENS
182:news
145:logs
119:talk
115:edit
85:and
765:ian
661:and
566:you
222:TWL
157:•
153:– (
1070::
1035:)
1014:)
997:)
952:)
932:)
897:)
872:;
869:BO
850:)
832:)
812:)
793:)
730:)
693:)
653:)
636:)
619:-
576:.
542:)
493:)
485:.
469:)
459:.
447:)
439:.
423:)
406:)
364:)
356:.
329:)
290:)
238:)
202:)
147:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
43:.
1031:(
1010:(
993:(
948:(
928:(
893:(
846:(
828:(
808:(
789:(
755:B
726:(
689:(
649:(
632:(
608:|
557:☼
538:(
507:☼
489:(
465:(
443:(
419:(
402:(
360:(
325:(
286:(
234:(
226:)
218:·
212:·
204:·
197:·
191:·
185:·
179:·
174:(
166:(
163:)
151:)
113:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.