437:. I agree in many ways with S Marshall. WP:PORNBIO is a very poor indicator of a subject's likelihood of meeting the GNG, and no longer enjoys the support of a consensus in the community; it has survived mainly because there is no consensus on how to replace it. It's undeniable that, in comparison to virtually any other field, awards and nominations are handed out profligately (the temptation is to say promiscuously); I reviewed a year's worth of AVN award nominations a while back, and found that it was fairly easy to predict which releases would be nominated for awards: their producers had purchased large enough (half-page or more) ads in AVN. The subject here has no nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. The pre-2005 "awards"/noms are trivial and do not contribute to notability. The 2006 nomination relates to a scene the subject appears in, in a category where sixteen scenes are nominated and about fifty performers are listed. It is very difficult to give any significant weight to such an award nomination. The article itself includes no reliably sourced biographical information. Therefore, given the complete absence of independent, reliable sourcing, and the fact that the subject satisfies WP:PORNBIO only in a minor and technical sense, I conclude there is no evidence of genuine notability and would delete the article.
607:
unsuitability of this subject matter in an encyclopdia accessible by minor children... but for now, PORNBIO is still here. As parts of WP:N, the GNG is set to describe circumstances where notability might be determined through availability of significant, and the SNGs are set to describe circumstances where a verifiable topic may still be "worthy of note" in the absence of SIGCOV. Knowledge inclusion is about verifiability of noteworthy assertions, and not about only the most popular or most media-covered topics (though such coverage is helpful). The assertion allowed by PORNBIO (current version) is that she is verifiable as having received or been nominated for awards notable to her genre. It is not asserted that this porn star has received SIGCOV in mainstream publications, nor is that a policy or guideline mandate.
412:. WP:PORNBIO is a defective guideline, which sets the bar for notability far too low, and I reject it. AVN is very prolific with its awards, throwing out large numbers every year, and winning an AVN award is not a noteworthy accomplishment. The correct test of notability for pornographic actors is exactly the same as for everyone else: the GNG. I cannot find evidence that Selena Silver passes it.—
588:
inherently "well-known." Guidelines like WP:PORNBIO are to be "best treated with common sense" and subject to "occasional exceptions." It's hardly contrary to policy or practice to conclude that failure to meet the GNG outweighs marginal satisfaction of an SNG when the relevant SNG is viewed by a substantial segment of the community, as Jimbo Wales said, as "seriouslymisguided."
587:
She fails the GNG. There's a reasonable case to be made that she fails WP:PORNBIO, since "Best All-Girl Sex Scene (Video)" is not a performer award, by AVN's own classification; it's not unreasonable to say that the existence of so many obscure subcategories weighs against classifying all of them as
624:
As established in discussions on other subjects, webcomics coming to mind, an award's being well-known in narrow confines doesn't mean it demonstrates notability. And, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, verifiability is insufficient for inclusion. Otherwise being "employee of the month" in a notable enterprise
287:
Actually she has failed to make unique contributions to specific pornographic genres, she has not began a trend in pornography, has not starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature AND has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. Therefore she does not pass the
606:
itself, use the caveat "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". And if PORNBIO is now seen as "marginal", that is due to that SNG itself being slowly de-commissioned since its creation, and in reflecton of even Jimmy Wales himself appearing to understand the
521:
and have arguments all over again about genre awards seen as significant to and for that billion-dollar-industry, and whether having a significant role in genre-notable film meets WP:ENT), its few remaining instructions still have merit. GNG require SIGCOV. SNGs require
555:
Holy words, all the arguments for deletion aren't about the subject but about the guideline. Here we must only judge whether the subject respects the guidelines criteria or not, if you want discuss or improve the guideline, do it in an apposite discussion.
697:. The fourth criteria is quite apparently the most important of them as it can be linked to the basic criteria of biographies. This debate is not about the guideline itself, but my point is that Silver has not been featured in mainstream media.
727:
criteria. With your personal ideas of inclusion probably
Knowledge should not have more than 100 articles! The guideline explicitly says that deletion procedures should be considered just when "no criteria can be met". See here:
512:
Agreed PORNBIO litle resembles its original version or intent. So be it. Continued deprecation of PORNBIO needs to be addressed at PORNBIO, and not one-by-one at AFDs. But until PORNBIO is eliminated (and we then fall back to
498:- Satisfies criteria 2 of the PORNBIO guidelines. I do believe the guidelines can and should be tightened but this should be done at the guideline page rather than trying to establish consensus at an AfD of a minor article.
481:. I generally dislike making 'per' votes, but in this case S Marshall and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have summed up the situation incredibly well. I will content myself with saying 'per S Marshall and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz'.
180:
86:
81:
228:
530:
which verifiability does not itself have to be SIGCOV (or we may as well eliminate ALL SNGs). The GNG and SNGs are not mutually exclusive. And toward the number of awards AVN gives, the
715:
result. They show that you probably didn't read the whole guideline, or at least you haven't fully comprehended it. The guideline says "People are likely to be notable if they meet
141:
174:
455:
322:
PORNBIO). SNGs are set to help ascertain notability in those instances where GNG may not be met but an assertion of notability as described in an SNG is at least
662:
criteria 1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times"), applied in his specific field.--
76:
719:", not "the whole set of criteria", and that's so obvious. Just one or two pornographic actors satisfies all the criteria, as any academic satisfies all the
358:
326:. Failing GNG does mean we ignore SNGs nor vice-versus. GNG does not "trump" SNGs. SNGs don't "trump" GNG. They are both parts of the greater
658:, as written above. Pornbio#2 ("Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years") is anything else than the corresponding of
211:
I fail to see how this person is notable amid the lack of independent published sources and significant coverage in Google searches.
355:
114:
109:
602:
Well-known within the porn genre does not mean such awards "must" be well-known outside that genre. And all guidelines, including
425:
118:
764:
741:
706:
688:
671:
634:
619:
597:
582:
565:
550:
507:
490:
470:
446:
429:
394:
370:
342:
305:
278:
243:
220:
59:
630:
593:
442:
17:
101:
195:
729:
162:
330:
and intended to work in cooperation, not disharmony, to determine if a topic is in some manner "worthy of notice".
258:
and wins and nominations in multiple years. Even discounting the 2003, 2004 and 2005 CAVR Awards, the article shows
626:
589:
438:
779:
685:
616:
579:
547:
339:
275:
36:
778:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
503:
156:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
538:
for being self-serving. But that too is discussion in another place, as here we apply the SNG we are given.
702:
534:
also have an loooooong list of awards they give out, many shared by multiple nominees, and themselves have
301:
216:
152:
105:
698:
297:
212:
678:
609:
572:
540:
421:
332:
268:
239:
202:
737:
667:
561:
499:
188:
97:
65:
760:
720:
466:
694:
655:
486:
390:
382:
366:
289:
255:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
659:
514:
56:
168:
518:
413:
235:
570:
You're correct. This is not the place to re-write guideline. Sorry I responded so TLDR.
733:
663:
557:
531:
756:
724:
535:
462:
403:
293:
527:
482:
386:
362:
135:
603:
523:
327:
323:
53:
755:
per S. Marshall; reasons for deletion are too prominent to be ignored.
711:
I think your arguments are the strongest and the more convincing for a
314:
of that (or any) SNG's criteria, if at least one is met (and she
772:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
259:
263:
229:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
402:, multiple awards and nominations, passes WP:PORNBIO. --
676:
And ANYBIO is what we'll be using once PORNBIO is gone.
723:
criteria and very few mainstream actors could meet all
131:
127:
123:
187:
292:, and the last reason also means that she fails the
87:
Articles for deletion/Selena Silver (3rd nomination)
82:
Articles for deletion/Selena Silver (2nd nomination)
693:Point being..? She fails the remaining criteria of
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
782:). No further edits should be made to this page.
456:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
201:
8:
454:Note: This debate has been included in the
227:Note: This debate has been included in the
453:
226:
52:before this goes up for AFD again. v/r -
354:Note: This debate has been added to the
625:would suffice to establish notability.
385:with AVN nominations in 2005 and 2006.
74:
48:. Perhaps a change needs to be made to
7:
310:Sorry. One is not required to meet
77:Articles for deletion/Selena Silver
72:
24:
654:clearly satisfies criteria 2 of
381:per MichaelQSchmidt. She passes
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
717:any of the following standards
1:
765:04:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
742:10:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
707:09:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
689:03:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
672:20:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
635:22:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
620:21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
598:22:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
583:03:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
566:21:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
551:21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
508:17:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
491:06:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
471:23:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
447:23:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
430:19:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
406:, 12 October 2011, 18:52 CET
395:15:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
371:15:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
343:03:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
306:03:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
279:11:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
244:09:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
221:08:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
60:15:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
799:
775:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
356:WikiProject Pornography
71:AfDs for this article:
627:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
590:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
439:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
730:Failing all criteria
318:met two of them to
266:in 2005 and 2006.
44:The result was
473:
459:
428:
359:list of deletions
246:
232:
790:
777:
681:
612:
575:
543:
460:
420:
418:
373:
335:
271:
233:
206:
205:
191:
139:
121:
34:
798:
797:
793:
792:
791:
789:
788:
787:
786:
780:deletion review
773:
679:
610:
573:
541:
414:
353:
333:
269:
148:
112:
96:
93:
91:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
796:
794:
785:
784:
768:
767:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
532:Academy Awards
500:Morbidthoughts
493:
475:
474:
450:
449:
432:
407:
397:
375:
374:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
282:
281:
248:
247:
209:
208:
145:
92:
90:
89:
84:
79:
73:
70:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
795:
783:
781:
776:
770:
769:
766:
762:
758:
754:
751:
743:
739:
735:
731:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
709:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
691:
690:
687:
686:
683:
682:
675:
674:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
650:
636:
632:
628:
623:
622:
621:
618:
617:
614:
613:
605:
601:
600:
599:
595:
591:
586:
585:
584:
581:
580:
577:
576:
569:
568:
567:
563:
559:
554:
553:
552:
549:
548:
545:
544:
537:
533:
529:
525:
520:
516:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
497:
494:
492:
488:
484:
480:
477:
476:
472:
468:
464:
457:
452:
451:
448:
444:
440:
436:
433:
431:
427:
423:
419:
417:
411:
408:
405:
401:
398:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
377:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
357:
352:
351:
344:
341:
340:
337:
336:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
286:
285:
284:
283:
280:
277:
276:
273:
272:
265:
261:
257:
253:
250:
249:
245:
241:
237:
230:
225:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
204:
200:
197:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
154:
151:
150:Find sources:
146:
143:
137:
133:
129:
125:
120:
116:
111:
107:
103:
99:
98:Selena Silver
95:
94:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
67:
66:Selena Silver
64:
62:
61:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
774:
771:
752:
716:
712:
684:
677:
651:
615:
608:
578:
571:
546:
539:
495:
478:
434:
415:
409:
399:
378:
338:
331:
319:
315:
311:
274:
267:
262:in 2005 and
251:
210:
198:
192:
184:
177:
171:
165:
159:
149:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
721:WP:ACADEMIC
699:11coolguy12
652:Strong Keep
298:11coolguy12
213:11coolguy12
175:free images
695:WP:PORNBIO
656:WP:PORNBIO
416:S Marshall
383:WP:PORNBIO
324:verifiable
290:WP:PORNBIO
256:WP:PORNBIO
236:Tom Morris
50:WP:PORNBIO
734:Cavarrone
664:Cavarrone
660:WP:ANYBIO
558:Cavarrone
536:criticism
515:WP:ANYBIO
387:• Gene93k
363:• Gene93k
757:Sailodge
680:Schmidt,
611:Schmidt,
574:Schmidt,
542:Schmidt,
519:WP:ACTOR
404:fdewaele
334:Schmidt,
270:Schmidt,
142:View log
483:Jenks24
463:Grahame
181:WP refs
169:scholar
115:protect
110:history
753:Delete
725:WP:ENT
479:Delete
435:Delete
410:Delete
294:WP:GNG
153:Google
119:delete
528:WP:RS
196:JSTOR
157:books
136:views
128:watch
124:links
16:<
761:talk
738:talk
732:. --
713:keep
703:talk
668:talk
631:talk
604:WP:N
594:talk
562:talk
524:WP:V
517:and
504:talk
496:Keep
487:talk
467:talk
443:talk
400:Keep
391:talk
379:Keep
367:talk
328:WP:N
320:pass
302:talk
260:XRCO
254:per
252:Keep
240:talk
217:talk
189:FENS
163:news
132:logs
106:talk
102:edit
526:in
316:has
312:all
264:AVN
203:TWL
140:– (
763:)
740:)
705:)
670:)
633:)
596:)
564:)
556:--
506:)
489:)
469:)
458:.
445:)
393:)
369:)
361:.
304:)
296:.
242:)
231:.
219:)
183:)
134:|
130:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
759:(
736:(
701:(
666:(
629:(
592:(
560:(
502:(
485:(
465:(
461:—
441:(
426:C
424:/
422:T
389:(
365:(
300:(
238:(
234:—
215:(
207:)
199:·
193:·
185:·
178:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
155:(
147:(
144:)
138:)
100:(
57:P
54:T
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.