1141:. This superslut award is meaningless compared to other larger categories such as "three XRCO Awards for 'Elegant Angel' productions, including Best Release, Best Gonzo Movie, and Best Gonzo Series". Then there is "director William H. was named Best Director" (for whatever). This is followed by "Tori Black...won her second straight Female Performer of the Year, while Manuel Ferrara was named Male Performer of the Year while also being inducted into the XRCO Hall of Fame. These are awards that make sense - these are large scale awards. The niche award Superslut hardly compares with these. Also, see comment below:
977:- The idea that one can't verify that a subject has or has not won a particular award by using a citation from the awarding organization is silly nonsense that has no bearing on this or any other AfD. Who would know better who won a particular award than the organization that gave out that award in the first place? There is also no blanket prohibition on using
1394:
back for years, under the current version of PORNBIO and even under less rigorous, older versions. Grammy Awards are much more well-known and much more significant than porn industry awards, but some winners in less prominent categories -- eg, album notes, arrangements -- aren't seen as notable. Independent, reliable source coverage matters.
749:
categories like "Unsung
Swordsman", "New Stud", "Orgasmic Oralist" or "Superslut". And when reading a bit into the above book sources (that moreover state her to be one of the first well known gonzo performers) one will understand why she has been awarded as Superslut: because it's perfectely hitting the truth."
1243:
That's quite the straw man you're trotting out yet again. The real issue isn't sourcing to "pornography-related publications". It's sourcing to press releases and "articles" that are barely retouched PR copy posted by trade magazines on behalf of their advertisers. It's a very straightforward matter.
1011:
an indiscriminate collection of information. Press releases do not indicate notability because they are not independent of the subject, are not objective due to commercial interests, they are promotional, and do not show the subject has gained significant independent recognition or coverage and so on
585:
Orgasmic
Analist is also a legitimate award for a porn industry awards show. The whole point of porn awards is to reward performances in porn films. Anal sex is a popular porn category, so it makes sense for a porn awards show to give an award to a performer they perceived to be the best in the genre
83:
On the question whether the XRCO awards satisfy the PORNBIO criterion, most of the arguments in that regard are just assertions, or citing precedent in other AfDs in favour of keeping (some other AfDs were apparently "delete" though, as well), whether niche is a pro or a con for counting them in, or
1498:
the awards are apparently considered trivial niche awards, in an industry that apparently makes sure that every conceivably justifiable performer gets at least one. In all fields we have the practice of deciding which awards show notability , and I think it;s welllestablished that such awards as
512:
PORNBIO requires the award to be both "well known and significant". The debates or contention in AFDs/DRVs like
Deauxma and Elexis Monroe have been whether their nominations are significant enough to satisfy PORNBIO simply because they are performer awards. No, they are not and consensus had made
1393:
is a part of, says so, flat out, plain as day. There was consensus just this month to delete articles who won prominent awards in downlevel categories, because those categories fell short of the PORNBIO significance standard and little or no RS coverage of the article subject existed. Examples go
675:
well known and significant. But just as there is an Oscar for Best
Actress and an Oscar for Best Original Story, we need to differentiate between the winner of the XRCO Award for Best Actress and the XRCO Award for Superslut of the Year. One helps the winner pass PORNBIO, and the other gets her
607:
that was indeed the precedent I was referring to and which negates BBW's comment/reply. The award has been deemed to be relevant and notable enough in the recent past, although I'm not entirely certain that was the ultimate selling point for keeping that particular article vis-à-vis other media
748:
SamWinchester000: "Also her serious, personal XRCO Awards are of course no fun-awards just because of their namings. Neither are they promotional as they are giving out the only independent porn critics' awards in the US. XRCO is using some figurative, let's call it, "poetic" namings for their
1306:
I said nothing of the sort, nor did I ask a question. You are deliberately misrepresenting my statements (and those of other editors) because you cannot refute the argument that the article fails basic requirements for inclusion because it lacks reliable independent sourcing. Your behavior is
278:
The references are a bunch of porn industry press releases about a bunch of industry backscratching awards. I think that reasonable people can conclude that a "superslut" award given out at an adult nightclub is not comparable to a Nobel or
Pulitzer prize, or an Academy Award or Golden Globe.
79:
about that section, so the whole guideline appears to be in flux right now but leaning towards stricter standards. There does not seem to be a question about whether these awards were indeed given. I see some other awards are discussed on the article but very little (and a little ambiguous)
842:
At best it can be said these awards exist; but that is not an indication of notability (these are just industry press announcements). Also, it seems verifiablity is based on finding independent sources that corroborate existence; so these sources seem questionable in that regard. Ignoring
822:
Based on this, the significance of the above mentioned awards have been over-inlfated in this AfD. First the cited sources, mentioning the subject, for the awards are not independent coverage - they are covered in the outlet published by the organization that gives out the awards
500:, The XRCO-awards are considered to be "well-known" and "significant", thus negating your comment. It's not necessary that every single prize in these awards is highly notable as well. In fact, if that was true, even a case could be made against various technical Oscar awards. --
84:
prior discussion (mostly unlinked to) on WT:BIO as against, or but the numerical preponderance is on the side of the "no" camp. Also, Steve Quinn and in lesser measure others have laid out arguments that the awards are not significant enough, with not much detailed disagreement.
762:
There was only one keep vote in the entire AfD (by TM) which cited GNG and not PORNBIO/awards. Also, niche awards aren't excluded from PORNBIO, in fact, PORNBIO#2 reinforces their inclusion into the guideline ("Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre").
1367:
for winning the XRCO awards. Anti-porn votes are certainly present here, and it seems their votes hinge on the argument that XRCO "aren't significant". They are, of course; they're second only to the AVN awards, and as such, Rose is notable enough for an article.
698:
are "a well-known" adult film "industry award" ceremony, but their specific award categories "Superslut of the Year" & "Orgasmic
Analist" are basically niche awards categories that likely do not rise to the level of a "significant" award category. Also, the
622:. A single discussion, anomalous with the broad sweep of discussions weighing lack of GNG-sufficient coverage against a arguable, narrow, technical SNG pass can hardly bind future community decisions. Montanabw sums up the case for deletion effectively.
1020:. This is how we write an encyclopedia. I can't see how notability can be claimed only via one or more press releases (with virtually no other sources). And the template doesn't mean anything other than it is a template - there are a bunch of those at
517:. The discussions were extensive and bear careful reading (even MT's comments are only excerpted here). Other AFD discussions have concluded with deletion of performer bios where the performer had won awards that would meet your standard. In addition,
790:), notability of this subject, and no bearing on this AfD. This is pretty much an end around action to try to add off-topic information and stack more Ivotes in this AfD than really exist. It is not appropriate. And, this comment should be ignored.
1074:
What I see, what appears to be happening, with your most recent comment, is the SNG, "PORNBIO", is being taken out of context. Knowledge (XXG) is consistent - notability has not been established for this subject. You might be interested in the
815:"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability".
1459:. I also have no moral objections to pornography; and, as a feminist concerned about the gender gap in Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage, I would prefer to see more, not fewer, articles about women, no matter their subjects' occupations.
1137:
For me it is not IDON'TLIKEIT and it is not IAR. It is
Knowledge (XXG) standards contained in guidelines and policies. The award itself "Kristina Rose (Superslut)" is a niche award of the XRCO Award pantheon. Here are the listings
483:. The PORNBIO standard requires a "well-known" and "significant" award, which is a higher standard than an "individual" award. This !vote misrepresents the applicable guideline and should therefore be disregarded.
229:
1209:
When talking about there supposedly not being any independent sources in the article, I think you're making a mistake that a lot of "delete" !voters seem to make when it comes to adult film actors. As I stated
906:
Superslut my arse - no aposit there is an analist of the year award too. Doesn't change the fact that this claim to notability is a massive pile of bollocks. (superslutty bollocks of analist bollocks or not)
324:
401:. Niche categories like "Unsung Siren" and "Superslut" have been disputed though. However, the working consensus at recent AfDs has been that such performers satisfy the guideline and are likely notable.
934:
It is in fact quite an effective argument. I believe what is being said is that these are very minor awards and, at the same time, the above claims to notability are misguided and perhaps misleading.---
741:
Wikiuser20102011: "While one might find the name of the awards she won distasteful (and I somewhat agree), it is an individual body of work award and has been given out for long enough to be considered
510:. Your argument contradicts a solid, long-established consensus hammered out in the discussions which led to the last significant revisions of PORNBIO. @Morbidthoughts probably stated it most clearly:
364:
1499:
these do not. (but fwiw, the website of the awarding organization is a sufficiently reliable source that the awards were in fact awarded--we routinely use sources like that for all sorts of awards).
1271:
As you well know, that's not at all relevant. Making cosmetic changes to press releases and PR copying and labeling the result an "article" doesn't create reliable sourcing as defined/described in
1056:
is obviously in the eye of the beholder - our long-developed set of many
Knowledge (XXG) SNGs either mean something or they don't...opinions certainly vary on that topic. This particular subject's
735:
Me: "Clearly passes WP:PORNBIO#1 ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award"). PORNBIO only excludes scene-related and ensemble categories. Superslut is not scene-related/ensemble."
52:. Alright, this one is complex and I expect it won't reach unanimous agreement (both on the discussion and my closure of it), so I shall make a few points garnered from the discussion:
397:. The XRCO Award may not be the Golden Globes, but Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines don't require iconic or superlative status. The individual XRCO wins satisfy the letter of
387:. As she won two individual XRCO Awards (XRCO which are notable and not obscure) in separate years, which is properly sourced, she meets the notability criteria from WP:PORNBIO. --
182:
810:
if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject"
344:
1052:
The fact that a person has won an award is not a controversial piece of information. Whether one thinks that winning a particular award denotes that a particular person is
223:
725:
582:
529:
guarantee that a subject should be included", and it is very common, under many SNGs, for lack of substantial coverage to override an arguable, technical SNG pass.
1096:
guarantee that a subject should be included', and it is very common, under many SNGs, for lack of substantial coverage to override an arguable, technical SNG pass
304:
1007:, and see other SNG main pages. Press releases may be fine for informational purposes after notability of the subject has been demonstrated or established.
189:
76:
301:
824:
17:
586:
that year. Mocking the names of these categories is not a legitimate reason at all to attempt to degrade their value under PORNBIO.
581:
for
Superslut and Orgasmic Analist, which are well-known/significant industry awards that aren't scene-related/ensemble categories.
155:
150:
120:
958:
159:
1085:
518:
1399:
1312:
1280:
1249:
827:
627:
534:
488:
1021:
260:
In an industry that creates and promogates awards all over the place, nothing about Rose and her list of awards seems notable
682:
142:
244:
211:
640:
1529:
40:
1425:
guarantee that a subject should be included." As the available coverage does not come anywhere near that required by
1395:
1308:
1276:
1245:
1139:
830:
623:
530:
484:
514:
464:
265:
205:
1113:
752:
Rebbing: "Her two
Superslut of the Year awards—while apparently drawing the ire of some—meet PORNBIO point 1."
116:
1510:
1490:
1472:
1403:
1377:
1339:
1316:
1301:
1284:
1266:
1258:
And how many publications do you know of whose articles are retouched after they are initially published?
1253:
1238:
1204:
1150:
1128:
1069:
1047:
1033:
990:
969:
943:
911:
890:
872:
772:
712:
686:
661:
631:
595:
565:
538:
492:
475:
445:
431:
410:
376:
356:
336:
316:
292:
269:
201:
124:
1112:
Seriously? And a lot of the "delete" rationales acknowledge that she won awards, so I don't know if it's
1525:
1486:
1200:
1146:
1043:
1029:
965:
939:
886:
868:
835:. This means the garnering of these awards is not covered substantially in independent reliable sources
768:
728:
specifically cited her XRCO Superslut wins as one of the reasons why it meets our notability guidelines:
591:
427:
146:
36:
1083:"). PORNBIO does not rewrite policies and guidelines. As noted above - and it seems worth repeating - "
455:
261:
251:
95:, something also emphasized by a number of delete !voters who also noted relevant statements such as
1414:
1390:
1364:
844:
574:
398:
72:
1373:
1293:
been; which is it? Anyway, the original question you ask is what isn't relevant, so let's move on.
285:
237:
138:
130:
1386:
1327:
1187:
or something like that I can see trying to claim some sort of notability - but far down the list "
795:
Notability is a standard reached by adhering to guidelines and policies, the core of which is the
439:
per K.e.coffman. No significant coverage, just being on a list of minor awards doesn't cut it.
112:
1426:
1323:
1008:
860:
800:
999:
The subject is not significantly covered by third party and independent reliable sources - see
1466:
1167:
1065:
986:
708:
583:
We have very recent consensus to support the inclusion of the XRCO Superslut award in PORNBIO.
406:
372:
352:
332:
312:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1524:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1456:
1452:
1434:
1092:
conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does
1076:
525:
conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does
513:
clear when we last edited PORNBIO that the category is important in determining significance.
100:
96:
60:- and no, as pointed out press releases typically don't count towards that for the most part.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1482:
1196:
1163:
1142:
1039:
1025:
961:
935:
882:
864:
764:
587:
423:
1448:
1440:
1430:
1418:
1117:
1088:, which PORNBIO is a component of, states clearly that 'Failure to meet these criteria is
1017:
1013:
1004:
1000:
856:
852:
848:
796:
787:
521:, which PORNBIO is a component of, states clearly that "Failure to meet these criteria is
419:
217:
104:
92:
57:
1396:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.
1309:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.
1277:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.
1246:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.
624:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.
531:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.
485:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.
1272:
836:
1369:
1227:
652:
553:
453:- she won two individual XRCO Awards, she meets the notability criteria of WP:PORNBIO.
440:
280:
1444:
981:
as sources in Knowledge (XXG) articles, especially for non-controversial information.
91:
meeting the PORNBIO criteria is not by default a "is notable"/keep reason, as said on
1506:
924:
700:
677:
609:
501:
388:
1226:
there be a lot of sources from pornography-related publications? That would be like
103:, statements that have not been disagreed with, which is especially concerning on a
1461:
1061:
982:
908:
833:
721:
704:
402:
368:
348:
328:
308:
978:
176:
1038:
Also, as an aside, this subject is controversial as demonstrated by this AfD ---
755:
MichaelQSchmidt: "per meeting WP:PORNBIO through awards notable and significant"
64:
1193:
Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration
843:
fundamental notability criteria does not work. The two sentences that comprise
695:
578:
738:
Morbidthoughts: "I believe she passes PORNBIO not just because of her awards"
703:
article basically passed GNG, which is apparently why it was kept recently.
863:
and is very much contingent on these as stated in the above on that page.
1501:
1324:
the he's-disruptive-because-he-doesn't-agree-with-me argument again...
1289:
First you said the sources haven't been touched, but now you say they
608:
notability, so there is no reason to now have a different outcome. --
960:. This is the fourth AfD nomination which includes two deletes. ---
77:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (people)#Proposed Change to PORNBIO
1195:". And only press releases for references is still an issue. ---
847:
do not exclusively determine notability; that is why the page is
1518:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1443:
vote; it's predicated on the plain text and manifest intent of
1433:, and keeping in mind the "additional criteria" disclaimer and
1016:. And this is a common theme across notability guidelines per
643:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
325:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
422:
as significant RS coverage on the subject cannot be found.
365:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
829:
and an in industry trade publication (a vested interest)
1211:
172:
168:
164:
1162:
PORNBIO states that it is being inducted into the the
923:
That's a lot of rambling but not even an argument. --
786:
The Ivotes in that prior AfD have no bearing on the, (
236:
1060:
is "controversial" as is evidenced by this AFD here.
1222:). If porn is what she is primarily known for, why
726:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ariana Jollee
649:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
250:
1218:Kristina Rose, not pornography (pornography is a
56:It's pretty clear that the article does not meet
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1532:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1230:' article not having any music-related sources.
1170:or equivalent. It doesn't simply say XRCO award.
1383:There's no such thing as "automatic" notability
957:there is a related AfD currently ongoing here:
345:list of California-related deletion discussions
1191:" is merely an accolade. Also, PORNBIO says "
8:
363:Note: This debate has been included in the
343:Note: This debate has been included in the
323:Note: This debate has been included in the
855:is referred to. PORNBIO does not supersede
69:a well-known and significant industry award
1435:the reasons for the notability requirement
362:
342:
322:
1439:To save us all some time: This is not an
1214:, the subject of Kristina Rose's article
1179:" - which this person has not. If it was
1177:well-known and significant industry award
877:Based on what I wrote above, my Ivote is
418:-- despite the awards, the subject fails
300:Note: This debate has been added to the
75:- a separate discussion is going on on
1437:, this article should not be retained.
1413:Even accepting that the subject meets
724:, the vast majority of keep voters at
87:Finally and perhaps most importantly,
68:
745:Subtropical-man: "meet of WP:PORNBIO"
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1275:. Lipstick on the pig and all that.
851:and not WP:PORNBIO. And that is why
1086:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)
519:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)
1022:Knowledge (XXG):Citation templates
24:
1175:It does say if the person won a "
107:about a sensitive subject matter.
63:The main argument is whether the
1363:- automatically notable under
1081:Why we have these requirements
1:
1326:. You might as well continue
552:as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –
1419:WP:BIO § Additional criteria
1181:Female performer of the Year
927:, 18 August 2016, 16:47 CET.
504:, 7 August 2016, 14:45 CET.
1511:00:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
1491:11:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
1473:12:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
1404:11:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
1378:22:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
1340:22:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
1317:11:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
1302:09:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
1285:12:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
1267:09:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
1254:13:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
1239:09:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
1205:01:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
1151:01:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
1129:23:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
1070:04:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
1048:03:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
1034:02:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
991:21:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
970:05:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
944:05:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
912:13:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
891:16:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
873:16:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
773:22:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
713:04:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
687:18:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
662:13:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
632:23:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
612:, 8 August 2016, 10:08 CET.
391:, 5 August 2016, 14:45 CET.
125:23:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
1549:
1307:dishonest and disruptive.
1079:(a WP:N section entitled "
671:I believe the XRCO Awards
596:05:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
566:02:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
539:15:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
493:13:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
476:01:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
446:22:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
432:17:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
411:12:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
377:12:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
357:12:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
337:12:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
317:12:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
293:04:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
270:02:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
1521:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
302:WikiProject Pornography
1009:Knowledge (XXG) is not
806:"People are presumed
1120:, but neither fly.
676:polite applause. —
80:discussion on them.
71:for the purpose of
1481:, per Rebecca1990
1385:in this context.
1338:
1300:
1265:
1237:
1168:XRCO Hall of Fame
1127:
664:
660:
472:
379:
359:
339:
305:list of deletions
262:John Pack Lambert
1540:
1523:
1471:
1469:
1464:
1337:
1335:
1331:
1299:
1297:
1264:
1262:
1236:
1234:
1164:AVN Hall of Fame
1126:
1124:
659:
657:
650:
648:
646:
644:
563:
558:
474:
473:
470:
467:
461:
460:
443:
319:
290:
288:Let's discuss it
255:
254:
240:
192:
180:
162:
34:
1548:
1547:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1530:deletion review
1519:
1467:
1462:
1460:
1333:
1321:
1295:
1260:
1232:
1122:
799:and expands to
685:
665:
653:
651:
639:
637:
559:
554:
465:
463:
458:
456:
454:
441:
299:
286:
197:
188:
153:
137:
134:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1546:
1544:
1535:
1534:
1514:
1513:
1493:
1476:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1330:with yourself.
1228:Britney Spears
1172:
1171:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1132:
1131:
1114:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1036:
994:
993:
979:press releases
972:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
929:
928:
915:
914:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
875:
840:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
804:
792:
791:
776:
775:
759:
758:
757:
756:
753:
750:
746:
743:
739:
736:
730:
729:
716:
715:
689:
681:
647:
636:
635:
634:
616:
615:
614:
613:
599:
598:
568:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
469:
448:
434:
413:
392:
381:
380:
360:
340:
320:
296:
295:
258:
257:
194:
133:
128:
109:
108:
85:
81:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1545:
1533:
1531:
1527:
1522:
1516:
1515:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1503:
1497:
1494:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1477:
1475:
1474:
1470:
1465:
1458:
1454:
1451:, especially
1450:
1446:
1442:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1421:, that "does
1420:
1416:
1412:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1341:
1336:
1329:
1325:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1298:
1292:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1263:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1235:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1185:Best Director
1182:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1158:
1157:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1130:
1125:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1097:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
997:
996:
995:
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
973:
971:
967:
963:
959:
956:
953:
952:
945:
941:
937:
933:
932:
931:
930:
926:
922:
919:
918:
917:
916:
913:
910:
905:
902:
901:
892:
888:
884:
880:
876:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
841:
838:
834:
831:
828:
825:
821:
814:
813:
812:
811:
809:
805:
803:which states:
802:
798:
794:
793:
789:
785:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
774:
770:
766:
761:
760:
754:
751:
747:
744:
740:
737:
734:
733:
732:
731:
727:
723:
720:
719:
718:
717:
714:
710:
706:
702:
701:Ariana Jollee
697:
693:
690:
688:
684:
679:
674:
670:
667:
666:
663:
658:
656:
645:
642:
633:
629:
625:
621:
618:
617:
611:
606:
603:
602:
601:
600:
597:
593:
589:
584:
580:
576:
572:
569:
567:
564:
562:
557:
551:
548:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
515:
509:
506:
505:
503:
499:
496:
495:
494:
490:
486:
482:
479:
478:
477:
468:
462:
452:
449:
447:
444:
438:
435:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
414:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
393:
390:
386:
383:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
361:
358:
354:
350:
346:
341:
338:
334:
330:
326:
321:
318:
314:
310:
306:
303:
298:
297:
294:
291:
289:
284:
283:
277:
274:
273:
272:
271:
267:
263:
253:
249:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
203:
200:
199:Find sources:
195:
191:
187:
184:
178:
174:
170:
166:
161:
157:
152:
148:
144:
140:
139:Kristina Rose
136:
135:
132:
131:Kristina Rose
129:
127:
126:
122:
121:contributions
118:
114:
113:Jo-Jo Eumerus
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
62:
59:
55:
54:
53:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1520:
1517:
1500:
1495:
1478:
1438:
1422:
1410:
1382:
1360:
1332:
1294:
1290:
1259:
1231:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1159:
1121:
1109:
1093:
1089:
1084:
1080:
1057:
1053:
974:
954:
920:
903:
878:
807:
783:
742:well-known."
691:
672:
668:
654:
638:
619:
604:
570:
560:
555:
549:
526:
522:
511:
507:
497:
480:
450:
436:
415:
394:
384:
287:
281:
275:
259:
247:
241:
233:
226:
220:
214:
208:
198:
185:
110:
88:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1483:Pwolit iets
1197:Steve Quinn
1143:Steve Quinn
1040:Steve Quinn
1026:Steve Quinn
962:Steve Quinn
936:Steve Quinn
883:Steve Quinn
865:Steve Quinn
765:Rebecca1990
696:XRCO Awards
588:Rebecca1990
579:XRCO Awards
457:Subtropical
424:K.e.coffman
224:free images
65:XRCO Awards
1391:WP:PORNBIO
1365:WP:PORNBIO
1058:notability
845:WP:PORNBIO
655:Sandstein
575:WP:PORNBIO
399:WP:PORNBIO
73:WP:PORNBIO
1526:talk page
1387:WP:PEOPLE
1370:ArchieOof
1189:Superslut
577:with her
573:. Passes
442:Montanabw
403:• Gene93k
369:• Gene93k
349:• Gene93k
329:• Gene93k
309:• Gene93k
111:Regards,
37:talk page
1528:or in a
1389:, which
1328:battling
1224:wouldn't
1220:category
925:fdewaele
861:WP:BASIC
801:WP:BASIC
678:MShabazz
641:Relisted
610:fdewaele
502:fdewaele
389:fdewaele
183:View log
89:arguably
39:or in a
1496:Delete.
1457:WP:NRVE
1415:PORNBIO
1411:Delete.
1322:Yawn...
1160:Comment
1077:WP:WHYN
1062:Guy1890
1054:notable
983:Guy1890
975:Comment
955:Comment
921:Comment
909:Spartaz
808:notable
784:Comment
722:Guy1890
705:Guy1890
692:Comment
605:Comment
498:Comment
481:Comment
395:Comment
230:WP refs
218:scholar
156:protect
151:history
101:WP:WHYN
97:WP:NRVE
1417:, per
1334:Erpert
1296:Erpert
1261:Erpert
1233:Erpert
1123:Erpert
1118:WP:IAR
1018:WP:NRV
1014:WP:NRV
1005:WP:BIO
1001:WP:GNG
904:Delete
879:Delete
857:WP:GNG
853:WP:GNG
849:WP:BIO
797:WP:GNG
788:WP:BIO
694:- The
669:Delete
620:Delete
550:Delete
471:(en-2)
437:Delete
420:WP:GNG
416:Delete
282:Cullen
276:Delete
202:Google
160:delete
105:WP:BLP
93:WP:BIO
58:WP:GNG
50:delete
1507:talk
1427:BASIC
1273:WP:RS
1110:Keep.
1024:. ---
837:WP:RS
683:Stalk
556:Davey
508:Reply
245:JSTOR
206:books
190:Stats
177:views
169:watch
165:links
16:<
1487:talk
1479:Keep
1463:Rebb
1455:and
1453:WHYN
1447:and
1400:talk
1374:talk
1361:Keep
1313:talk
1291:have
1281:talk
1250:talk
1212:here
1201:talk
1147:talk
1066:talk
1044:talk
1030:talk
1012:per
987:talk
966:talk
940:talk
887:talk
869:talk
859:and
769:talk
709:talk
628:talk
592:talk
571:Keep
561:2010
535:talk
489:talk
466:talk
459:-man
451:Keep
428:talk
407:talk
385:Keep
373:talk
353:talk
333:talk
313:talk
266:talk
238:FENS
212:news
173:logs
147:talk
143:edit
117:talk
99:and
67:are
1502:DGG
1468:ing
1449:BIO
1441:IAR
1431:GNG
1429:or
1423:not
1183:or
1116:or
1094:not
1090:not
881:---
673:are
527:not
523:not
252:TWL
181:– (
1509:)
1489:)
1402:)
1376:)
1315:)
1283:)
1252:)
1216:is
1203:)
1166:,
1149:)
1098:".
1068:)
1046:)
1032:)
1003:,
989:)
968:)
942:)
889:)
871:)
832:,
826:,
771:)
711:)
630:)
594:)
537:)
491:)
430:)
409:)
375:)
367:.
355:)
347:.
335:)
327:.
315:)
307:.
268:)
232:)
175:|
171:|
167:|
163:|
158:|
154:|
149:|
145:|
123:)
119:,
1505:(
1485:(
1445:N
1398:(
1372:(
1311:(
1279:(
1248:(
1199:(
1145:(
1064:(
1042:(
1028:(
985:(
964:(
938:(
885:(
867:(
839:.
767:(
707:(
680:/
626:(
590:(
533:(
487:(
426:(
405:(
371:(
351:(
331:(
311:(
264:(
256:)
248:·
242:·
234:·
227:·
221:·
215:·
209:·
204:(
196:(
193:)
186:·
179:)
141:(
115:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.