841:. Fails PORNBIO and, more importantly, the GNG. The only sources for substantive content in the article are a string of promotional interviews, some posted by retailers hawking product the subject appears in, with inconsistent and often contradictory claims. It's no secret that porn agents craft (using the term loosely) biographies to reflect the audiences' fetishes; that's why so many porn "actresses" claim to be gifted students who were cheerleaders and/or gymnasts. In this case, the subject's first agent, quoted in one of the sources, has a track record of fictionalizing even the most easily verified claims about his clients' careers. That an admin would rest their consclusions on the very local and contested "consensus" on a Wikiproject talk page rather than input on the BLP or RS talk pages from genuinely competent and experienced editors is discouraging but not at all surprising, and they should recuse from further action here.
632:
regard to Mia
Malkova, she also has won only one major award, one less then Lana Rhoades. None of you have asked to take her article down. In fact, when I read past arguments for taking her profile down, there was almost unanimous agreement to keep her profile article up. Someone needs to explain this, since both profiles have very little information, and Mia Malkova has won one less prominent award.
60:
31:
1071:
spare us this utter bilge, so palpably nonsensical it would give Sean Spicer pause. The AVN piece is similarly riddled with the standard porn agent cliches -- "“But then me and my boyfriend broke up. We dated for three years. … I’ve only had sex with one guy before porn" . . . and promotional comments from her agent and folks hawking the videos she performs in.
1093:
Sure, I'll correct my rationale to address your issue. I believe the XBIZ Awards is well known (a different subjective standard than notability) more so than the FAME Awards that was not adequate for keeping
Alektra Blue, and the category significant therefore she passes PORNBIO. As for your comments
692:
Excuse me sir or madam, but what you express is your very own point of view. Porn actors/actrices are persons of public interest just like main stream actors/actrices. The porn industry each year creates sales of billions of dollars or euros and nobody takes note of it? Not seriously. Maybe
Knowledge
631:
I wrote a message above in regard to edits I made for Mia
Malkova as well. I also added references and citations since some were incorrect previously or lead to an error page. Absolutely nobody here has answered my posts as to why her page is allowed to remain up with little or no information. In
1070:
is nothing but PR copy masquerading as an interview -- "Lana
Rhoades is an icon in the making. As surely as era-defining pinups Rita Hayworth, Marilyn Monroe and Raquel Welch came to symbolize sex for entire generations, the newly crowned 2017 XBIZ Best New Starlet is destined for immortality" --
815:
You're the editor making the most serious misrepresentations. The Porn
Wikiproject has a long history of being out of step with BLP and RS principles, and resting any conclusion on a discussion there rather than at the appropriate policy discussion boards is irresponsible if not betraying serious
769:
There are 9 citations in the article at present; the IMDB of porn (1), press releases announcing winners/nominees(4), and interviews appearing in a softcore magazine(1), a porn website(2), and a porn magazine(1). Porn-DB is out, press releases are out, interviews by the very outlets that give the
650:
Lana
Rhoades is an AVN and XBIZ award winner and was nominated for a few more awards, that should be definitively a reason to keep. I personally would suggest a few optimizations, e.g. to eliminate some trivia and to concentrate more on facts, for example the main companies she worked with (e.g.
1074:
Not a sign of fact-checking is evident, and in the XBIZ piece written after she changed agents, big chunks of her bio have been changed. Hell, they don't even agree about what her first "Boy-Girl" porn film was. There's no reliable biographical information on which to build an article.
669:
Winning porn awards is not enough when zero reliable sources take note of it. Think it may time to realise that the insular world of pornography achievement is not something that the real world takes notice of. Also, for other readers or mods, note the curious account creation
796:
as to whether the article stays as an article or is turned into a redirect. The sources were discussed at WikiProject level, and it was found that there were no serious BLP concerns. What I am not neutral on is people misrepresenting the situation because they don't like it.
693:(XXG) decides to eliminate all porn contributions from their database for some reason. Then one have to accept it, otherwise not. The findings you made about my user account are right, but contribute definitely nothing to matter resp. to this discussion.
563:
At least be consistent in your arguments. You all also refuse to answer the questions as to why her profile is still up, as it also does not have enough or very little information, based upon your statements in regard to this adult film star.
751:, and held to be generally reliable enough to be used in this BLP. Those claiming that the sources are unreliable are incorrect at minimum. Also, "delete" is not an option, as the subject is certainly notable enough to appear in the list.
613:
Winning awards is not sufficient if not a single reliable source covers the subject in any manner, interviews and pornography media mentions do not qualify. Find several quality sources that cover this person and I'll change my vote.
556:. As I've pointed out in the past, as an example, Mia Malkova has apparently won only one award qualifying her for inclusion. There was the same argument going on with her, yet her profile is still there, as you may view here.
225:
384:
1064:
article was deleted by consensus, and she'd won the equivalent category in a "notable" award set. And the sourcing here is dreadful. There are only three substantive references; the first (Penthouse)
674:, dormant until taking part in this deletion discussion today and then editing the article. There is a strong whiff of outside meddling/collaboration within this and other porn deletions lately.
917:. Like above fails PORNBIO and general notability. I am sure she will have a page at some point though. This is the IDEAL example of a WP:TOOSOON page. DELETE is the clear call.
507:- NOTE: I've recently edited the article under consideration here, and I'm sure that it can be further expanded upon in the future. The subject of this article here has won the
256:
This is a
Procedural Nomination. I am totally neutral in this and my nominating the article for deletion is not to be seen as a vote for deletion. Per previous discussion at
304:
178:
770:
awards (AVN and XBIZ) are not sufficiently independent, so the only usable sources for notability there are the magazines. Your entire premise for keeping rests on shaky
346:
40:
219:
524:
462:
Awards are not equivalent to AVN Awards, and have been routinely discounted in AFD discussions, going back several years; see, for example, the Jayden James DRV here
69:
520:
365:
406:
490:
inclusion standard as she has won the New
Starlet awards in both AVN and Xbiz Awards which are both the main awards for this specific industry. --
185:
432:, which states, "The person has won a well-known and significant industry award." Not only has she won "a well known award", she's won two: an
1039:
well-known and the category significant. There is enough non-contentious biographical information to support the article beyond being a stub.
589:"She was previously involved in cheerleading and gymnastics. She has also mentioned in interviews that she loves baking, especially cupcakes."
1002:
I would call on a passing-by admin or the eventual closing admin to strike the comment above. User "Scenicview1"'s entire argument rests on
403:
582:-- no SIGCOV has been presented at this AfD. The article contains no encyclopedicly relevant prose and is filled with trivia such as:
17:
1144:
333:
Keep is no option as the sourced biog is too small to support a standalone. Any sourced data can be mentioned in the list. Or not.
594:
A techical SNG pass is not a replacement for having independent reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail.
651:
Jules Jordan & Evil Angel), a complete enumeration of her nominations (AVN “Best New
Starlet“ !!!) and to add a filmography.
151:
146:
118:
549:
512:
1080:
846:
821:
470:
155:
240:
138:
883:
207:
1072:
1126:
1068:
98:
75:
46:
1076:
842:
817:
466:
1006:, along with an unhealthy barrage of racism accusations against participants in this deletion discussion, e.g. "
1099:
1044:
868:
201:
273:
1003:
771:
748:
463:
296:
698:
671:
656:
197:
1122:
1103:
1084:
1048:
1019:
1015:
950:
946:
926:
907:
872:
850:
825:
806:
783:
779:
760:
731:
727:
702:
683:
679:
660:
641:
637:
623:
619:
603:
599:
573:
569:
536:
499:
495:
474:
449:
417:
395:
376:
357:
337:
320:
285:
120:
94:
300:
110:. The inherent notability from winning awards was challenged, and no further sources were put forward.
942:
633:
565:
694:
652:
312:
116:
1028:
938:
487:
429:
247:
1095:
1040:
922:
864:
516:
233:
1061:
515:("person has won a well-known and significant industry award"). Best New Starlet Awards are major
1077:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.
843:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.
818:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.
467:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.
802:
756:
532:
411:
389:
370:
351:
281:
257:
142:
87:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1121:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
93:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1011:
775:
723:
675:
615:
595:
491:
445:
901:
308:
213:
111:
719:
863:'s alleged track record of fictionalization and how it has contributed to this article.
918:
1138:
891:
Please also discuss whether this could be redirected as proposed if you !vote delete.
860:
798:
752:
528:
334:
277:
134:
126:
172:
1065:
441:
1010:" above. This toxicity and personal attack needs to be snipped now. Thank you.
1094:
about porn cliches, which contentious details have made it into the article?
1032:
896:
508:
437:
433:
552:"person has won a well known and significant industry award". Also the avn
718:(sic)... Then you can of course provide evidence of this? In the form of
716:
are persons of public interest just like main stream actors/actrices"
561:
Apparently, absolutely nobody has answered this question as of yet.
1008:
I know racism still exists against these people, but come on now.
1115:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
54:
25:
886:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
986:
971:
557:
1060:: That's not the PORNBIO standard. Just a few days ago the
385:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
260:, it would be helpful if editors were to vote to either
168:
164:
160:
305:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 11
232:
894:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
246:
941:and not Lana Rhoades. Someone explain it to us.
747:- Sources used in this article were discussed at
101:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1129:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1067:is both flimsy and unreliable; the third (XBIZ)
511:for Best New Starlet in 2017, which meets the
1035:Best New Starlet Award, with the award being
347:list of Illinois-related deletion discussions
8:
383:Note: This debate has been included in the
364:Note: This debate has been included in the
345:Note: This debate has been included in the
382:
366:list of Women-related deletion discussions
363:
344:
486:Like Kbabej above says, she fulfills the
792:As I said when nominating, I am totally
402:Note: This debate has been added to the
962:
74:For an explanation of the process, see
45:For an explanation of the process, see
722:that demonstrate the public interest?
715:
711:
519:awards, as has been shown in at least
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
558:https://en.wikipedia.org/Mia_Malkova
41:deletion review on 2019 September 1
70:deletion review on 2017 October 30
24:
58:
29:
440:, both of which are notable. --
76:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
937:Why does Mia Malkova meet the
1:
303:). I have transcluded it to
859:I'm curious to learn about
554:Fan Award for Best Newcomer
295:This AfD was not correctly
1161:
550:PORNBIO inclusion standard
513:PORNBIO inclusion standard
1104:05:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
1085:10:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
1049:19:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
1020:00:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
951:15:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
927:04:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
908:07:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
873:19:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
851:12:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
826:12:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
807:05:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
784:00:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
761:18:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
732:18:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
703:17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
684:14:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
661:13:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
642:06:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
624:03:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
604:21:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
574:16:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
537:07:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
500:21:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
475:10:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
450:20:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
418:10:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
396:10:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
377:10:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
358:10:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
338:10:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
321:07:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
286:07:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
121:08:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
1145:Pages at deletion review
1118:Please do not modify it.
90:Please do not modify it.
404:WikiProject Pornography
546:Best New Starlet Award
274:List of Penthouse Pets
712:"Porn actors/actrices
816:competence issues.
517:adult film industry
1004:"but other stuff!"
544:As noted the xbiz
293:Automated comment:
910:
407:list of deletions
398:
379:
360:
323:
319:
258:Talk:Lana Rhoades
82:
81:
68:was subject to a
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
1152:
1120:
991:
990:
982:
976:
975:
967:
904:
899:
893:
889:
887:
720:reliable sources
548:qualifies under
420:
416:
394:
375:
356:
315:
314:Talk to my owner
310:
291:
266:the article, or
251:
250:
236:
188:
176:
158:
92:
62:
61:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1160:
1159:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1127:deletion review
1116:
996:
995:
994:
984:
983:
979:
969:
968:
964:
911:
902:
897:
882:
880:
410:
401:
388:
369:
350:
318:
313:
193:
184:
149:
133:
130:
106:The result was
99:deletion review
88:
66:This discussion
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1158:
1156:
1148:
1147:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1096:Morbidthoughts
1088:
1087:
1052:
1051:
1041:Morbidthoughts
1022:
993:
992:
985:Malkova, Mia.
977:
970:Malkova, Mia.
961:
960:
956:
955:
954:
931:
930:
929:
892:
890:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
865:Morbidthoughts
854:
853:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
810:
809:
787:
786:
764:
763:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
706:
705:
687:
686:
664:
663:
645:
626:
607:
606:
592:
591:
590:
584:
583:
577:
539:
502:
480:
479:
478:
477:
453:
452:
422:
421:
399:
380:
361:
341:
340:
324:
311:
254:
253:
190:
129:
124:
104:
103:
83:
80:
79:
73:
63:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1157:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1140:
1130:
1128:
1124:
1119:
1113:
1112:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1023:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
998:
997:
988:
987:"Mia Malkova"
981:
978:
973:
972:"Mia Malkova"
966:
963:
959:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
933:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
913:
912:
909:
906:
905:
900:
888:
885:
874:
870:
866:
862:
861:Mark Spiegler
858:
857:
856:
855:
852:
848:
844:
840:
837:
836:
827:
823:
819:
814:
813:
812:
811:
808:
804:
800:
795:
791:
790:
789:
788:
785:
781:
777:
773:
772:WP:BLPPRIMARY
768:
767:
766:
765:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
743:
742:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
710:
709:
708:
707:
704:
700:
696:
691:
690:
689:
688:
685:
681:
677:
673:
668:
667:
666:
665:
662:
658:
654:
649:
646:
643:
639:
635:
630:
627:
625:
621:
617:
612:
609:
608:
605:
601:
597:
593:
588:
587:
586:
585:
581:
578:
575:
571:
567:
562:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
540:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
482:
481:
476:
472:
468:
464:
461:
457:
456:
455:
454:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
424:
423:
419:
415:
414:
408:
405:
400:
397:
393:
392:
386:
381:
378:
374:
373:
367:
362:
359:
355:
354:
348:
343:
342:
339:
336:
332:
328:
325:
322:
316:
309:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
289:
288:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
270:
265:
264:
259:
249:
245:
242:
239:
235:
231:
227:
224:
221:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
199:
196:
195:Find sources:
191:
187:
183:
180:
174:
170:
166:
162:
157:
153:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
131:
128:
125:
123:
122:
119:
117:
115:
114:
109:
102:
100:
96:
91:
85:
84:
77:
71:
67:
64:
57:
56:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1117:
1114:
1062:Alektra Blue
1057:
1036:
1024:
1007:
999:
980:
965:
957:
934:
914:
895:
881:
838:
793:
744:
647:
628:
610:
579:
560:
553:
545:
541:
504:
483:
459:
425:
413:CAPTAIN RAJU
412:
391:CAPTAIN RAJU
390:
372:CAPTAIN RAJU
371:
353:CAPTAIN RAJU
352:
330:
326:
299:to the log (
292:
268:
267:
262:
261:
255:
243:
237:
229:
222:
216:
210:
204:
194:
181:
135:Lana Rhoades
127:Lana Rhoades
112:
107:
105:
89:
86:
65:
36:
1012:TheValeyard
953:Scenicview1
943:Scenicview1
776:TheValeyard
724:TheValeyard
676:TheValeyard
644:Scenicview1
634:Scenicview1
616:TheValeyard
596:K.e.coffman
576:Scenicview1
566:Scenicview1
525:recent AfDs
492:Elysium1988
297:transcluded
220:free images
1029:WP:PORNBIO
958:References
939:WP:PORNBIO
695:Meilerkarl
653:Meilerkarl
509:XBIZ Award
488:WP:PORNBIO
438:XBIZ Award
430:WP:PORNBIO
113:Ritchie333
1123:talk page
1031:with her
1027:- Passes
919:GoldenSHK
774:grounds.
436:, and an
434:AVN Award
95:talk page
1139:Category
1125:or in a
884:Relisted
749:WT:PORNO
331:Redirect
269:Redirect
179:View log
97:or in a
1058:Comment
1037:notable
1000:Comment
935:Comment
799:Mjroots
794:neutral
753:Mjroots
745:Comment
672:in 2016
629:Comment
529:Guy1890
521:several
335:Spartaz
317::Online
278:Mjroots
226:WP refs
214:scholar
152:protect
147:history
915:Delete
839:Delete
714:(sic)
611:Delete
580:Delete
442:Kbabej
329:&
327:Delete
301:step 3
272:it to
198:Google
156:delete
108:delete
241:JSTOR
202:books
186:Stats
173:views
165:watch
161:links
16:<
1100:talk
1081:talk
1045:talk
1033:XBIZ
1025:Keep
1016:talk
947:talk
923:talk
869:talk
847:talk
822:talk
803:talk
780:talk
757:talk
728:talk
699:talk
680:talk
657:talk
648:Keep
638:talk
620:talk
600:talk
570:talk
542:Keep
533:talk
505:Keep
496:talk
484:Keep
471:talk
458:AVN
446:talk
428:per
426:Keep
307:. —
282:talk
263:Keep
234:FENS
208:news
169:logs
143:talk
139:edit
903:Why
460:Fan
248:TWL
177:– (
1141::
1102:)
1083:)
1047:)
1018:)
949:)
925:)
898:So
871:)
849:)
824:)
805:)
782:)
759:)
730:)
701:)
682:)
659:)
640:)
622:)
602:)
572:)
535:)
527:.
523:,
498:)
473:)
465:.
448:)
387:.
368:.
349:.
284:)
276:.
228:)
171:|
167:|
163:|
159:|
154:|
150:|
145:|
141:|
72:.
43:.
1098:(
1079:(
1043:(
1014:(
989:.
974:.
945:(
921:(
867:(
845:(
820:(
801:(
778:(
755:(
726:(
697:(
678:(
655:(
636:(
618:(
598:(
568:(
531:(
494:(
469:(
444:(
409:.
280:(
252:)
244:·
238:·
230:·
223:·
217:·
211:·
205:·
200:(
192:(
189:)
182:·
175:)
137:(
78:.
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.