The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Ivy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet N. Nomination for an AVN award is not the same as being notable and, per BLP proper reliable sources are required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this page was blanked by the article creater citing pornbio. Pornbio is subordinate to GNG and BLPs still require reliable sources to survive so this takes precedence. Source it or lose it please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Ivy nominations, [1], [2] It is fact, that she received 2 nominations! --Hixteilchen (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what?? PORNBIO is subordinate to N which is subordinate to BLP and this is a BLP. You need reliable sources for this. Not avn and some porn site but actual independent secondary sources. Have you got any? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AVN Awards site this is no reliable source, from the hoster of the award, I don´t write anything here...--Hixteilchen (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not independent and I would question if its detailed enough. PORNBIO no longer reflects the overall expectations for sourcing BLPs. The community decided over the last 6 months that BLPs needed more stringent sources and this has only got AVN, which isn't in-depth and has serious reliability issues. Therefore PORNBIO is no longer the be all and end all of the inclusion standard. Overarching requirements have not been met and the guideline needs rewriting to reflect this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm that's interesting Essentially you are relying on a second that is about to be removed and is marked as disputed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd nomination here, reliable source. As long as the guideline exists, the article meets the criteria, so remove the AFD-tag.--Hixteilchen (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD tags cannot be removed until the conclusion of the AFD discussion... which usually rund some 7 days. And while yes, any facts in a lengthy BLP will need support in RS for its content in order to meet WP:BLP, it might be seen that multiple nominations of well-known genre-notable awards might meet WP:ANYBIO. And no, Pornbio is not sub-ordinant to N, but is part of and supportive of N. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this performer had received individual nominations in two different years, she would meet the awards criterion of WP:PORNBIO. However, the claimed nominations were given to scenes in which she performed, not to the performer herself. Appearing in an award-nominated episode of a TV show, or being a musician who performed on a Grammy-nominated song, doesn't automatically support individual notability, and I see no reason to make an exception to that general practice for porn performers absent appropriate RS coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  We might then look up the hill to WP:GNG and decide if any of the available sources might source any asserted notability. Its understandable that she will be in articles in Adult Video News, but its quite rare to find that such as the Toronto Sun would even mention a porn actress. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, if group scene or solo scene doesn´t matter, she passes WP:PORNBIO (nominations in different years) that´s fact. If the article will be deleted I will call deletion review, because what some users do here is not acceptable--Hixteilchen (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I do not agree with HW's separating the performers from the scene for the AVN nominations/awards. The performers are listed in the nominations and are each given a award trophy when they win. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's not "my" separation, but a classification created by AVN in its own listings; and while it's not common, whenever scenes have individual titles, AVN has listed the title rather than the performers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• However AVN might choose to edit themselves, that's AVN... not Wikipedia. And when an individual receives an award trophy for their participation and contributions to an award-winning scene, even AVN does not demand they return the awards they were given. Because of the importance of an individual's contributions, it is genrally recognized across mulitiple guidelines that individuals may be found notable by their particpation in notable group efforts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empty rhetoric, and not terribly accurate. "May be found notable" hardly translates to "are automatically presumed notable." AVN said its "scene" awards do not go to individuals, and they know better than Wikipedia editors. Real actors who appear in films that receive "ensemble cast" nominations or wins are not automatically presumed notable, nor are all members of national championship winning college athletic teams. Perhaps you could cite those "multiple guidelines" you insist are relevant rather than just asserting without perspective or points of reference.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling another's comments "Empty rhetoric, and not terribly accurate" is not reflective of policy or existing guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I dislike porn on Wikipedia, as even minors may read such articles without any oversite or regulation. But as WP:PORNBIO is being dismantled and is under dispute, it is reasonable to then look up the hill to the very basic and relevent WP:ANYBIO, which grants a "presumption" of notability for multiple nominations of notable awards (even if the awards are specific to one genre). Nothing is or is not "automatically notable" and it is consensus that is seen as the final arbiter. I am not myself "assuming" anything, but am rather acknowleging an allowable presumption based upon guideline. As that "presumption" as clarified by User:Morbidthoughts is verifiable, we have an acceptable assertion of notability. I agree with his interpretation of guideline in this instance, as it is supported by both policy and guideline... and there is no guideline that specifically states being part of a group effort is automatically non-notable... and indeed many that clarify the exact oposite. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:ANYBIO says exactly nothing about notable awards creating a presumption of notability. It refers to "well-known and significant award[s] or honor[s]." It also refers to being nominated for such an award "several times," and "twice" is not "several." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? WP:Notability (people) does indeed speak toward allowable and reasonable presumptions without the word "presumption" having to then be repeated over and over and over in every sub-section for the edification of those who missed reading it earlier (though even WP:BASIC begins by allowing a person is presumed to be notable... if later caveats are met). And the WP:ANYBIO section is immediately preceded by the instructions "People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." I read this as a section indicating that after a reasonable and verifiable presumption of notability is made, it is up to a consensus of editors to make the final determination. That the awards are well known and notable within their industry is fine. The sections at WP:PEOPLE exist as a inter-connected and supportive set of conditions. None exist as sole and only considerations. That you do not read that as allowing anyone else a presumption of notability is interesting, and you have made your opinion on the matter abundantly clear... but please, I will await the consensus of others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing around the main,if not only, relevant point. "Well-known and significant award" is a higher standard than "notable award"; there are many examples of awards which are notable, but do not transfer notability or a presumption of notability to their recipients -- eg, Rhodes scholarships, various annual British crown honors. My grandchildren are "well-known and notable" within the family, and Wal-mart's employees of the month are well-known and notable within their industry. In neither case are the subjects Wikipedia-notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:WAX arguments are not germain, as your family members or Walmart employees are not the subject under discussion. When they have articles up for deletion, we can speak about them then. What IS the germain issue is that this person has been recognized by peers within their industry and can be verified to have received two nominations of awards well-known and significant within their genre... and better too that these awards have been found notable per WP:N. To my knowledge, your family members and Walmart employees have not. I will await consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:N met by WP:PORNBIO #2, that test is verified by the (yes, primary) sources at AVN which is a reasonably reliable source for verifying the winners of the awards they themselves give out. (Those same sources would not be useful at all for establishing notability under the GNG, but that's not what I'm saying here.) --j⚛e decker^talk 17:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.