Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 8

:{{DRV links|Karla Lane|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karla Lane|article=}}

Closing admin clearly misapplied the applicable guideline. The closer stated there was no consensus on "whether her only award is notable, and hence whether she passes PORNBIO". However, under PORNBIO, a qualifying award must be "well-known and significant", a higher standard than merely notable; PORNBIO was tightened up in this regard four years ago. If there's no consensus that the award passes a relatively low bar, it should be evident that it fails the guideline's actual higher bar. Closing admin has refused to discuss

The delete !votes in this discussion were substantially more numerous, better argued, and better grounded in policy and guidelines. The keep !votes, to the extent they had any grouding, pretty uniformly rested on the argument that meeting any part of PORNBIO "automatically" guaranteed the subject an article. This contradicts express language in WP:BIO, which PORNBIO is part of, saying that technically passing an SNG "does not guarantee that a subject should be included". !Votes which contradict the governing guideline should be discounted, especially when they are in the clear minority. Finally, the keep !~voters made only trivial attempts, at best, to rebut the argument that, as a BLP without adequate reliable sourcing, the article should be deleted. BLP policy overrides a marginal pass of a dubious SNG. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 26 (Jayden James), which presents essentially the same issues, where the community strongly endorsed deletion, as well as the similar, quite recent, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Rose. Clear failure to meet GNG and BLP sourcing requirements overrides a heavily disputed claim to technically pass an SNG, especially one the community shows little confidence in. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• endorse without a lot of enthusiasm and with an understanding that the RfC on PORNBIO may change our guidelines and thus this may be worth revisiting soon. There are sources in the article that aren't horrid (Daily Dot has her discussing issues related to her job, there is a porn news site that _might_ be independent (can't tell and don't really feel like researching it from work). Might not be over the GNG (depends on independence issues), but not so bad that we don't have at least one, and maybe 2 or 3 RSes that cover her in enough detail to write an article... Hobit (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete, because the "keep" side's contention that having your name on [http://web.archive.org/web/20140126094717/http://avnawards.avn.com/page/3 this page] is sufficient to take you over the notability threshold for a BLP is, well, damn. I'm stuck for the right phrase. Let's say "Completely without merit", although I'd prefer to put it more strongly than that.—S Marshall T/C 13:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• : To put it more strongly is what? I was paid to keep the article?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• ::Certainly not. It would be to say the "keep" side arguments were completely outside the normal range of opinions shown at AfD, and showed a lack of editorial judgment. I'm trying to avoid being really, really rude about the arguments that were used to force a "no consensus" outcome in that debate. If this is the kind of article that we have to retain after a strict application of PORNBIO, then we'll need to open yet another RfC about PORNBIO because it's not appropriate to have BLPs with this kind of sourcing in our encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• :::{{u|S Marshall}} There is already a discussion ongoing about tightening pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• It's hard to take PORNBIO's "well-known and significant" at face value. I'm not convinced that any adult-industry award is well-known outside of the adult industry, like WP:ANYBIO requires for essentially every other field. —Cryptic 18:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Come on, its a BLP that doesn't pass the GNG. Whatever PORNBIO says there is a wider community consensus that such articles should be properly sourced. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: The close said that "there is a split on whether her only award is notable, and hence whether she passes PORNBIO." The AFD for that award has since closed as redirect (6–3 for delete). Rebbing 06:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Whether one discounts only the silliest votes (ArchieOof, Pwolit iets, and Tomwsulcer) or all the votes (both keep and delete) that fail to provide more than vague waves towards PORNBIO and GNG, there is clear consensus for deletion here. (Disclosure: I voted for deletion.) Rebbing 07:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per above. Would note that WikiProjects do not get to set their own looser notability rules for items in their purview. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse I personally do not think the award sufficiently substantial, but I do not think there is any agreement about that. DGG ( talk ) 13:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete -- the nature of the award is immaterial if RS are insufficient to meet GNG. Wikiprojects do not get to set their own notability guidelines, only community as a whole. (Disclaimer: I vote delete). K.e.coffman (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Forgive me for quibbling, but, as an additional criteria under BIO, PORNBIO is not a mere WikiProject recommendation but part of an established, community-wide notability guideline. I agree that, on its own terms, meeting PORNBIO is not enough to make a subject notable when true (GNG) notability is plainly lacking, but I think it's appropriate to defer to a finding of notability under PORNBIO in close cases (which this was not). Rebbing 16:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete. The claim made (by me, as it happens) that the article does not comply with WP:BLP was not refuted in the discussion, with nobody saying that there were any reliable sources about the subject with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as required by that policy. No amount of claims that the subject meets the WP:PORNBIO guideline should outweigh a failure to meet the WP:BLP policy, so it seems that this close was based on vote-counting rather than policy-based consensus. And, even then, the closer claimed that the decision was based on whether there was a consensus as to whether the award is notable, which is not part of the WP:PORNBIO guideline. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete. I don't think that close accurately reflected the content of the discussion. The Keep !voters focused almost exclusively on arguing that the subject meets PORNBIO, and didn't really dispute the assertion that the subject doesn't meet the GNG. The Delete !voters argued that the subject doesn't meet the GNG and either that she doesn't meet PORNBIO either or that this wasn't relevant. Several also said that having an article on a living person who has very little coverage in RS poses serious BLP problems, a significant concern. It is perfectly legitimate to delete an article on a subject who passes PORNBIO but fails the GNG, as pointed out above, and WP:BIO suggests such articles should be merged into others. The closing statement only focuses on the issue of whether the award is notable, which isn't the standard of PORNBIO and which has been pretty much settled by the fact we've got rid of an article about it. The GNG and BLP concerns should have been given greater weight. Hut 8.5 15:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse as no consensus. I don't know if I've ever seen a discussion that had been closed as "no consensus" brought to DRV; at any rate, I don't see the "delete" !voters saying anything new here. Why do y'all want to get rid of this article so badly? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

:*Which part of that comment contributes in any way to the discussion about whether this decision should be overturned? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

::*I find it hard to believe that you don't understand my comment. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

:::*I understand your comment perfectly well. The first sentence is about your knowledge of other DRV discussions. The second misunderstands the nature of deletion review. We are discussing whether the close accurately reflected the policy-based comments in the discussion. It is not the place to say anything new about whether the article should be deleted. And the third is simply a generic insult that could be applied to anyone who starts a deletion review. None of those sentences in any way contributes to the discussion of the issue at hand here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

:::*And even though your third sentence is irrelevant, I'll still give an answer in the interests of collegiality. I want this to be deleted because it is an article about a living person that is not written on the basis of reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete per most of the above. I find the arguments that the single award in question is 'major' are unconvincing, and that was the only thing saving this article from an outright deletion already. Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. It is a fact that the award has not been demonstrated to be notable, and so the close is at fault to cite the possibility that the award is notable. That there "is a split", aka "a dispute" is just a reflection of die-hard supporters of the long since discredited PORNBIO guideline section voraciously arguing in support of WP:BLP and WP:NOTDIRECTORY violating porn starlet stubs. Discrediting the failed arguments, there is a consensus to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Regardless of the fact that no-one provided any evidence that the award was "well-known and significant" in any way, it's simply a BLP that fails GNG. Given that practically all the Keep votes were based on this unproven claim of the award's significance, this is an easy Delete. I also note that if you take this and the other two linked AfDs above, every single Keep vote apart from one came from the same pool of six editors. I suspect this means that to delete most porn performer articles, you need at least ten people who believe it's not suitable for Wikipedia. This isn't how discussions should work. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• ... or you need an admin willing to close correctly per V and BLP regardless of the numbers involved in whatever discussion happens. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• You've hit the nail on the head there. The idea seems to have taken hold at AfD, and among many admins, that notability is the only game in town. If WP:BLP policy (which insists on a high standard of verifiability) was understood to be more important than any notability guideline, as it is, then we wouldn't have the problem of articles about living people being kept when there are no reliable sources available with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - I was one of the "!deleters" and with good reason - The article did quite simply fail GNG and it shouldn't of been closed as NC at all. –Davey2010^Talk 21:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• OK, just to check, you all did notice that this article has actual sources, including a rather relevant interview about issues in the porn industry published in a mainstream location? To claim that there are "no sources" or WP:V isn't met is just plain false. The sources may not be up to WP:N's standards, but there are decent sources that one can reasonably argue do meet the requirements of WP:N and certainly meet WP:V. I feel like our porn discussions are basically a lot of people on both sides not actually caring about the actuality of the sources or article, just !voting to keep or delete because it is a porn article. Black Kite's comments about the keep !voter's is certainly true (and frankly, I strongly suspect some of those folks are paid editors), but the delete !voters are also generally coming from a fairly small group (though much larger than the keep !voters and I very much doubt _they_ are being paid). Hobit (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

:* Indeed, my conclusion from this discussion is that very few voters cares about the policies, they just want the article to be deleted (or kept). And if I had closed it other way, they would accuse me in a supervote (this happened in the past as well). I will never ever close any porn AfD discussion again.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

::*I don't think anyone could blame you for that. I think this one could have been closed as delete, but NC was a reasonable reading. Welcome to the crossfire of someone else's war. Hobit (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

:*The only reliable source cited in the article is The Daily Dot, and its coverage starts with the words "Porn star Karla Lane told the Daily Dot...", so the coverage is simply quoting her and is not independent. The only thing that it verifies is that Ms Lane said those words, not that those words are true. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

::*Yep, it's the old question about if an interview counts as a RS for WP:N. And if you read out essays on the topic, the answer is "generally yes it does". And _this_ interview is about her experiences and opinions. At the very least we know what she's said are her experiences and opinions. And if you read the piece it is significantly more than a fluff interview. Plus there are other sources that, while not mainstream, are independent of the subject. And mainstream isn't a requirement for being a reliable source... Hobit (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

:::*Reliable sources are characterised by a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Do you really believe that any of the other sources have such a reputation? They are promotional web sites for the porn industry, which have a reputation for peddling fantasy, especially when writing about individual performers, rather than fact. Our [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&type=revision&diff=737378565&oldid=737377396 dear leader got it right] when he compared the content of such sites to kayfabe. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

::::*I've not got the first clue if, XBiz or "the porn corporation" are RSes, though I'd tend to guess that they get things right in their field of interest. Do you have some knowledge otherwise, or are you just assuming because they cover porn, they are likely not reliable? And the Daily Dot is reliable. Hobit (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

:::::*XBIZ certainly isn't; they're a component of a PR business which regularly hosts press releases and faux articles to promote their clients. Here, for example, are the press release originals for the two XBIZ "articles" used as references.[http://pornvalleymedia.com/?p=1835][http://www.rogreviews.com/37478/karla-lane-is-voluptuous-on-radio-temptation/] Not an RS, and certainly not independent. Just putting lipstick on the pig. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

::::::*Any ideas on Porn Corporation? Hobit (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

:::::::*It's your standard porn-promoting website making its money directing websurfers to pay sites. I really doubt that any "interview" asking questions like "What size are your beautiful juicy tits?" qualifies as an RS. And, since every post on the site seems to be credited to one "69violets", it's almost certainly a self-published source. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

::::::::*Thanks, I'm a bit loath to do research on such things from work for obvious reasons. Still, we have one solid source, so WP:V issues are met and SNG arguments are perfectly reasonable. So I stand by my endorse, though deletion would also have been a reasonable read of consensus. Hobit (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::*Interviews are good for basic info, as they are essentially WP:PRIMARY sources. We don't use memoirs and interview to source the careers of historical figures or business people. If we were to accept the Daily Dot source, we'd need to preface every sentence sourced from it as "According to Lane..." That would not fly in any other field; I see articles on business people routinely deleted if their bios are based on self-congratulatory interviews and puff pieces. I don't see why that would be different for adult entertainers. They are business people and should be treated as such. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::*: You may want to check articles on sportspeople, 99% of which are only sourced to one page of sporting results, where an athlete's name is mentioned.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::::*Exactly right; it was recently noted in the discussion at Notability:People: {{tq|We have statistics for that (...), and what they do show is that what are drowning other bios are not entertainment celebrities, but minor sport biographies, which constitute something like HALF of all bios created. If we want to tighten the criteria, we need to do something about that. --Piotrus| 25 August 2016 (UTC)}}. This seems to the issue of WP:NFOOTY and similar SNGs, but that's not the reason to keep articles of (minor) adult entertainment figures, per WP:Other stuff exists :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::::*: Sure, but this is actually a more general question about a relation between GNG, BLP, and specialized criteria. BLP is not an issue because whatever little info is in the article(s), it is (quasi-)reliable sourced. And the specialized criteria are there to make sure that even if the article currently does not pass GNG, i.e. there are no reliable sources demonstrating notability, it is still presumed, provided it passes a specialized criterion, be it PORNBIO or NSPORT, that such sources exist somewhere in reality and can be found and added to the article. Most of the AfD closers operate in this modality. There are two ways to improve the situation: either run an RfC and require that GNG should be met in any article irrespective of the specialized criteria (and then the specialized criteria are not needed at all, and 90% of our bio articles must be deleted), or to gradually improve the specialzed criteria. Dragging closures based on specialized criteria to DRV with random motivations is not the way to improve the situation. (Though with this particular article, it is indeed important that the award was later deleted as non-notable - though at the moment I closed this nomination I could not yet know it).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)