Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ryan Driller (2nd nomination)

969:"Mr. Wolfowitz has frequently used the above rhetoric in porn-related AfD discussions before. What the article that he cites actually shows is another thing though. First, it simply shows that Nica Noelle doesn't like award shows ('Whilst it was beyond clear that for her fans, Noelle would do anything, it was equally clear that the glitz and glamour of awards shows is difficult for her. 'I'm taking you here because I think it will be good for your article, but if it wasn't for you, it's very unlikely I would have come."'). It also shows that she, and at least some of her fellow adult business members, have disdain for ALL award shows ('Many believe that almost all of the award ceremonies were, if not fixed, in some way swayed by a small group of rich and influential people.'). The same, exact quote could be used to describe the Oscars or many other mainstream award shows. The article also shows that Nica Noelle has the same amount of disdain for the AVN Awards as she does for any other adult award show, of which there are at least several, ('Next come the musical and comedic acts before the awards themselves are handed out and as Noelle predicts, the big names and industries seem to win award after award.'). Ultimately, Noelle actually wins an AVN Award, but she doesn't collect it because 'You have to pay for them and I don't really care about awards unless they're voted for by my fans. I'll leave it.'" 1154:, clearly passes PORNBIO and would easily satisfy ANYBIO criteria if PORNBIO would not exist. Actual PORNBIO standards allow the creation of a dozen new articles per year (considering a few performers are the ones who repeatedly won the most of the awards), which seems reasonable to me if not too strict, and existing articles have been literally decimated in the last months/years. The significance of the Xbiz Award has been clearly demonstrated, both in this discussion (see in particular Morbidthoughts and Sammy1339 comments) and in previous AfDs, and it is given from the amount of publications and news resources covering it. As pointed above the complaints of a non-winning director about the awards she never won being a joke are not enough for deeming the awards as not significant, I am pretty sure this sort of "involved" criticism ("I had not won but I don't care as this award does not count") exists for any existing award. The subject is notable, especially as he has an established career spanning several years and several other awards and nominations under his belt. As long as the articles do not contain BLP violations and meets 862:

words, marketing contrivances. It's barely more than a passing mention, less than a single paragraph in a 300+ page volume. The second source is eually superficial, less than half a paragraph in a frankly cursory survey of industry awards. The third source does not say what you would have it say; it reports that the "popularity" of performer Keni Styles is demonstrated by his many awards and award nominations, including a win of an XBIZ award. Popularity is not notability. None of the keep !voters have squarely addressed the HuffPost-cited evaluation of the award as a "total joke" -- and opinion shared by other industry figures, such as performer Mariah Milano characterizing one year's awards as "a fucking disgrace" which "looks like a list of the top advertisers all the way down the list" and blogger Ryan Rayzer saying that "the person XBIZ tasked with picking the winners" was "clueless" and making scathing comments about XBIZ management's lack of knowledge about the industry.

1158:, there is no reason for deleting this one other than some predictable agenda-driven opposition to pornography-related (and more broadly to sexuality-related) articles. I would take more seriously complaints about failing GNG = failing WP:N if their proponents would show the same passionate opposition to the dozens of permastubs which are DAILY created about unknown footballers who played a few matches (even in third category tournaments), or eighteen-old cyclists whose mayor accomplishments were placing eight in a road race, or similar stuff. Most of them care about GNG only when it suits their personal/religious/political conservative views about society, sexuality and their common sense of decency. It would more honest to propose a ban for pornography althogether than constantly chattering about specific issues regarding this or that person, this or that source, this or that award, issues which rarely exist. 270:

poorly sourced BLP doesn't meet our notability standards, and the draft's proponents aven't provided any reliably sourced evidence that the awards involved meet the significance test under PORNBIO/ANYBIO. Are there any other fields where awards given like an organization like XBIZ are considered significant enough to demonstrate notability? Even if the award squeaked by the PORNBIO bar, a marginal technical pass of an SNG is not a guarantee that a subject merits an individual article; "

865:(These are opinions, of course, from blogs that can't be cited as RS's, but they demonstrate an as-yet-uncontested opinion held in the industry.) The bottom line remains no substantive case that the article subject meets the GNG, and no better than a disputed, very maginal argument for passing the PORNBIO SNG. Mainstream performers whose credits technically pass NACTOR but with similar lack of RS coverage have articles deleted rather regularly. 549:(4 times), all of whom pass GNG. The coverage of this fellow seems a little thinner, maybe because the award is recent (last month) but he does get a ton of passing mentions at least, mostly related to various roles he has played, as well as several sources offering short blurbs on him or quoting him. There's more in AVN and XBIZ which are still RS but don't appear in a Google news search, so there's enough to source the article with. -- 899:

are at least adequate to provide examples of opinions within the industry. And for all the hand-waving, neither you nor anyone else has disputed the point that no other award created by a promotional business where the nominees are selected by the business's clients is considered significant, across the wide range of fields where awards are given.

386:(p. 286). Indeed, her ethnographic research on the women’s market for sex toys and pornography involved attending three tradeshows to gather data from industry professionals and trade events and seminars, which she argues are the “best way to gauge what is new, what is notable, and, importantly, what direction the industry is headed” (p. 303). 538: 927:. The category, male performer of the year, is also significant enough for me. Allegations of corruption is not enough to dismiss its significance. There is concern if there is enough significant coverage to support a fully fleshed out biography but I am perfectly comfortable with an article that lists his notable roles and awards. 380:

trade events annually that include the XBIZ Awards, which honor influential companies and performers in a red carpet event like AVN’s awards ceremony. XBIZ.net serves as the industry’s social network, connecting adult industry professionals with community news, information and business opportunities around the world (Xbizworld.com).

534: 477:

The only independent RS I'm seeing is one quoting him (under a different name which isn't a problem, just pointing it out) on the use of condoms. I don't think that source is trivial, but I also don't think it's hugely significant. Are there other sources? I tend to be very supportive of SNGs, but

454:

Neither one of those sources actually covers the awards, but only mentions them in passing. If they are significant, why are there no independent, reliable sources reporting/discussing the results? Where is the independent, reliable coverage of the article subject? All of this hand-waving about the

379:

Similarly, XBIZ describes itself as the “global leader in adult entertainment industry news,” providing current industry coverage on their website as well as two monthly trade publications for the Internet and technology (XBIZ World) and the retail market (XBIZ Premiere) (XBIZ.com). XBiz hosts four

898:

None of those sources characterizes the XBIZ Awards as in any way "significant", as the term is used in the SNG. Indeed, the source which characterizes it as a marketing contrivance indicates precisely the opposite. Opinion pages which are not reliable as sources for factual assertions in articles

385:

Lynn Comella (2010) suggests that trade shows like those of AVN and XBIZ offer a “sociologically rich window into the marketing and mainstreaming of sex in American society” and provides “an opportunity to assess the challenges confronting the industry” like internet piracy and declining DVD sales

861:

the XBIZ awards for anything. The first, in a mention on a single page, states that "The XBIZ Awards, the AVN Awards, and the Adult Entertainment Expo are initiatives launched by the sexual capitalism industry to show its professional face and integrate itself into mainstream America" -- in other

802:

Buzzfeed isn't a reliable source - despite what gamergate warriors think. I was persuaded at the DRV to allow recreation but I have been given pause by HWs detailed explanation of why XBIZ is suspect. On that basis - when meeting an SNG is in dispute - we need to look directly at the GNG and this

567:

Whether Rocco Reed actually passes the GNG is debatable; his claim to notability rests entirely on this award. The sourcing of that article is also rather lousy. When a full one-third of the award recipients have no other notability credentials, that makes the award a shaky basis for a notability

420:

significant", not "or significant". Both tests must be met. The source you quote doesn't say the awards themselves are particularly significant or important, only that they're given out at trade shows which provide useful raw material for academic and market research. Where is the coverage of the

269:

themselves is almost entirely sourced to XBIZ itself; it's a strong signal that an award is not significant when the outcome is reported mainly by the awardgiver itself, and receives little or no independent, reliable coverage. Two AFC reviewers have independently reached the conclusion that this

783:

CNBC has said nothing of the kind, as you well know. The "Dirty Dozen" pieces (which are brief and superficial) are written by blogger/stringer Chris Morris, a nonnotable journalist who is not even an employee of CNBC. When, for example, individual film critics for the New York Times post their

1136:

or redirect to a list of award winners. There are no secondary sources if promotional sources are excluded, it is all thinly veiled promotion. WP:PORNBIO is a worthless discredited guideline section, routine industry awards not associated with independent commentary about the subject do not

883:

discredits the four academic sources which clearly present the XBIZ awards as significant. Much less the highly opinionated porn blogs "lukeford.com" and "lukeisback.com". You are usually against this sort of sourcing, at least when it helps you make an anti-porn case.

530: 499:

meets SNG, but I've grave doubts that the awards are a strong indication of meeting the GNG. No one has provided sources for GNG of significance and I've grave doubts that most award winners do meet the GNG, thus the SNG isn't a strong indicator of notability.

542: 245:". There's certainly a solid argument that the awards are well-known enough to be notable, but that's not enough to satisfy PORNBIO. XBIZ is a PR business, and its award nominees are not independently chosen, but "are submitted by clients". 1077:

actually as none of this is actually solidly convincing for the notability, the awards are simply nominations so they are not as solid weight and there's nothing here to suggest a better improvable article. Draft and Userfy if needed,

825:

I'm confused: where is Buzzfeed cited? Also, I think HW's argument that the XBIZ awards are not "significant" is very weak. Multiple academic sources refer to them. See these academic books in addition to the one I cited above:

746:

has stated that XBIZ is among "the industry's two highest-profile awards shows" and has incorporated the number of XBIZ nominations received into it's methodology for determining who the top 12 porn stars are in it's yearly

614:. Two of the examples I've provided resulted in consensus to keep the recipients of similar awards to the one Driller won with voters specifically citing the award win as the reason why it passes PORNBIO and should be kept. 215:

concluded that it should be relisted here to determine whether an award he has apparently now won, as described in the deletion review, confers notability. This is a procedural nomination, in which I am neutral.

784:

year-end "ten best" lists, we do not report those as the opinion of the Times itself (even though they are its employees). It's certainly incorrect to make such a claim when a nonemployee is creating the lists.

421:

awards themselves, and of the particular category the subject won, demonstrating that this recognition is significant enough to outweigh the absence of coverage of this article subject meeting GNG requirements?

180: 598: 632:

Rebecca, please stop misrepresenting other AFD discussions. Only one of those four discussions even mentions the GNG, and none even that one includes no substantive discussion of the relevant issues. There is

337: 79: 313: 924:- Passes PORNBIO. Was on the fence on whether the XBIZ Awards are really well-known but I checked Google News today and they're covered by reliable sources across the country and in other countries. 478:

I also want to see something showing that there are likely sources out there. I'll also be happy with evidence that most winners of the same award(s) meet WP:GNG. That would imply the award

440:. In the latter, we have "...the annual AVN and Xbiz awards (the industry's two highest-profile awards shows)." Male Performer of the Year is the top award a male performer can win. -- 983:), and the specific award category in question here ("Male Performer of the Year") is one of the most significant categories for male performers in the adult film industry, period. 241:, apart from routine industry PR, is flimsy and trivial. There's no independent, reliable sourcing presented that the claimed award meets the PORNBIO standard of being "well-known 1098:

Not all the awards "are simply nominations" at all...some of them are award wins. Award nominations haven't counted in the PORNBIO inclusion standard for a quite a while now.

133: 455:

supposed importance of a PR business's ceremony to hand out trophies to its clients' favorites can't obscure the lack of genuine notability of the subject of this BLP.

174: 604: 250:

I've never seen an independent reliable source attesting to the actual significance of the XBIZ awards. Instead, as pointed out in discussions like the discussion at

212: 758: 601: 74: 364:

I was initially concerned by Wolfowitz's argument, and looked into it. I didn't find anything else to strongly suggest that the awards were corrupt, as the 2013

140: 990:, unless one wants to give credience to performers apparently citing sour grapes for not winning awards that they apparently wanted to win in the first place. 945: 674: 251: 762: 607: 739: 274:". There's no reason to keep a marginal, poorly sourced BLP which includes virtually no reliably sourced information about the subject himself. 1173:- He's one several significant awards, and there are enough reliable sources to back it up and establish notability. Clearly passes PORNBIO. — 295:: A third AFC reviewer has now rejected the draft article, citing the lack of independent coverage and failure to satisfy GNG requirements. 258:

journalist reported after the 2013 award ceremony, "the majority of the performers and directors at the event" agreed that the awards were "

987: 976:

here is: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award." The XBIZ Awards are certainly well-known (they "have been compared to the

671: 807:

perhaps we need to look at XBIZ as a reason for keeping other porn performers - but that's one for another discussion at another place.

17: 1185: 740:

referred to the XBIZ Awards as the Golden Globes to AVN's Oscars and noted that the "biggest prize" was Female Performer of the Year

106: 101: 973: 436: 1223: 1191: 1165: 1146: 1128: 1107: 1089: 1067: 1039: 999: 936: 908: 904: 893: 874: 870: 852: 811: 793: 789: 774: 721: 686: 658: 654: 623: 577: 573: 558: 509: 491: 464: 460: 449: 430: 426: 411: 353: 329: 304: 300: 283: 279: 228: 110: 58: 263: 195: 833: 827: 248: 93: 1200: 1048: 1008: 830: 162: 1032: 1242: 40: 900: 866: 785: 650: 569: 456: 422: 296: 275: 1155: 754: 435:

I think the significance of the award is evident from the above excerpt. For coverage of the 2016 awards see also

944:- This AfD about Ryan Driller has unfortunately turned into a rehash of views that were aired & discarded in 708: 1084: 932: 156: 402:

significant industry award." If people want to eliminate the SNG, this is not the place for that argument. --

972:

Getting back the subject of the article that's actually under consideration in this AfD here, the relevant

751: 438: 237:. No argument has been made that the subject passes the GNG, The independent coverage in the article and 152: 1238: 1180: 770: 619: 238: 54: 36: 925: 699: 885: 844: 730: 594: 550: 441: 403: 392: 254:

and the HuffPost article I cite there, these awards are viewed as fundamentally unimportant. As the

202: 1219: 1142: 1079: 961: 928: 889: 848: 554: 445: 407: 188: 638: 1065: 370: 1103: 995: 735: 682: 97: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

1237:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

1174: 1124: 1026: 766: 615: 748: 611: 391:

It seems like on the basis of this it's reasonable to say that the top XBIZ awards satisfy

901: