View source for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 12

<noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude>
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 12|12 April 2012]]===
<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.

Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~<noinclude></noinclude>~~      -->
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
* '''[[:Bridgette B]]''' – Deletion endorsed.  Although there are opinions presented that the subject meets the [[WP:PORNBIO]] guideline, under [[WP:GUIDES]] "occasional exceptions may apply" to guidelines and there is clearly a consensus that even if the subject met the guideline this AfD was a situation where an "occasional exception" clause was applicable, and that the original closure to delete was appropriate on that basis. – [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 16:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{DRV links|Bridgette B|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgette B (2nd nomination)|article=}}
I am really confused as to why this article was deleted. The pornographic actress in question won an AVN Award, which is the very first criterion of notability under [[WP:PORNBIO]]. There were a few users that !voted "delete", but this was because they all thought [[WP:PORNBIO]] is a defective guideline. I believe my best response to that will be repeated here: {{cquote|If you think a guideline isn't appropriate, an AfD about a subject that passes that guideline is not the place to bring up such an argument; it should be brought up on the guideline's talk page. In this case, if the argument was brought up at [[WP:BIO]] (the parent of [[WP:PORNBIO]]), the guideline was changed and then this article was revisited, ''then''  an AfD would make sense. And I do understand why the article was deleted the first time (for the record, I didn't create the article that time), but now it was created again because ''she passes the guideline.'' (In fact, the admin that salted the article title unsalted it.)}}
:I tried [[User_talk:Erpert/Archive_6#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FBridgette_B_.282nd_nomination.29|discussing this]] with the deleting admin, but s/he stands by his/her delete decision, so I brought it here. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' 
<small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 08:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' DRV has held for a long time that PORNBIO will not be enforced in the absence of reliable secondary sources as required by the GNG and BLP. In a case where guidelines compete the closing admin has discretion to look at the arguments posed in the AFD as well as the wider community consensus and it is very clear from their comments at UT:Erpert [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AErpert&diff=486969387&oldid=486964316] that this is exactly what they did. That the nominator does not accept the fact that the community doesn't trust PORNBIO doesn't distract from the fact that the only keep argument was based on PORNBIO and that the delete arguments correctly cited the requirement from BLP that articles of living people must be based on independent reliable secondary sources. Something that this article was wholly lacking. Good close and a poor DRV based on IDHT and IDONTLIKEIT. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 10:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' (as a "delete" !voter in the AfD).  WP:PORNBIO #1 is clearly a poor indicator.  No award necessarily confers notability; notability is not inherited from a notable award to the awardees.  Many awards are very good indicators of notability, but clearly the lesser AVN awards are not.  There are many AVN awards, more awards than articles covering them, and they appear to exist as a promotional excercise.  The definitive test for Wikipedia-notability is whether others have written about the subject.  As PORNBIO #1 so spectactualy fails, it needs to be struck.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 10:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. Eluchil404's thoughtful close, and even more detailed explanation on Erpert's talk page, are entirely consistent with BLP policy, with community practice as established by multiple AFD and DRV discussions, and with the outcome of the recent RFC and followup discussions on the SNG involved. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 14:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
**It would be nice to hear from people that ''didn't'' !vote in the original AfD. (And HW, point out some of these AfD and DRV discussions you're referring to, please.) '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 16:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
::* How about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_November_4 Rachel Star], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_February_3 Savvanah Gold - note the closing admin required sources to be produced before this coule be recreated], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_January_24 Carmen Hayes], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Starr_%282nd_nomination%29 the Rachel Star AFD2]. You are welcome to go look through the archives for any more if you still feel the need. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 18:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:::*Also its a good idea to look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_May_21 Monica Star] as here deletion and the AFD are a good reflection of where the arguments changed from accepting AVN nominations/wins and discounting them without additional sources. Oh the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monika_Star AFD] was closed by me against the numbers. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 18:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:*And one more thing I just noticed...Spartaz, it's really ironic that you're bringing up [[WP:IDHT]] and [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] when the fact that you don't like the guideline is the very basis of your delete !vote. (And what exactly are you saying ''I'' don't like?) '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 16:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
::*The difference is that I am not a lone voice arguing against everyone else. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 18:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:::*Neither am I. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 18:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
::::* It sure looks like it at the moment :-) [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 18:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - No error on the closer's part.  Once upon a time I held the misguided belief that secondary/sub-notability guidelines were simply Door #2 by which a subject could be deemed article-worthy, if unworthy for [[WP:GNG|Door #1]].  Since then, I have evolved.  There has to be ''something'' outside of the insular little world of porn...or Transformers or Pokemon or a billion other specialty fields...that has taken notice of the subject in order to justify its inclusion in this project.  Otherwise we're just a host to the trivial and the banal as long as some narrowly-focused media or trade publications take note of the subject. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 17:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
**This is what I don't understand. I have seen a lot of articles on pornographic actors deleted through AfD because of not passing [[WP:PORNBIO]]. This actress actually does pass it, but then the argument is, "Oh, but you know what? PORNBIO is defective." I'm sorry; you can't have it both ways. If you think the guideline is defective as you say, it should be deemed defective in ''all'' situations, not just select ones. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 18:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
***That's a very fair point and deserves a proper explanation. I think its important to understand that 4/5 years ago we were much less concerned about sourcing and most of our SNGs date from that time when people were not really focused on the BLP aspects of wikipedia articles because BLP didn't exist. Gradually the community's expectations over sourcing for articles generally and BLPs in particular has tightened considerablly and there has always been tension between SNGs and the GNG. What has happened is that the community now has a meta consensus on notability for BLPs that the SNG does not reflect but despite reams of discussion, a clear consensus of what to replace PORNBIO with remains elusive. What we do know is that most editors who commented on the last RFC rejected the current state of play but it was not depreceated for lack of consensus around what to replace it with and also because NACTOR might then come into play and that's even looser (and possibly something else that now needs looking at). Essentially this leaves us a lot of articles that should be deleted but no-one is really interested in doing the due diligence to nominate them at AFD knowing that when they get deleted they always come straight to DRV. S o sleeping dogs are allowed to lay. But when articles come on the radar they get looked at under the new consensus and are most often being deleted given the usual outliers where a local consensis is allowed to trump the meta-comminity consensus because either the discussion was pants or the close was lazy. Overall that does leave a confusing mess and I do sympathise with your difficulty understanding where we are with this. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 18:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
****This is what you keep getting wrong, Spartaz: [[WP:PORNBIO]] is ''not'' deprecated, and there is not a new consensus (not yet, anyway); PORNBIO is ''under discussion.'' Don't you think the idea of deleting the article would make more sense after that discussion was actually closed?...''And'' if PORNBIO was indeed changed? You're jumping the gun here. BTW, I find it hard to believe that you sympathize with me when you do things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eluchil404&diff=486986451&oldid=486969760 this] (which seems like bragging) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erpert&diff=486979516&oldid=486969387 this].  '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 06:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
*****It obviously is depreciated when a basic component for keeping isn't enforced in favour of wider community norms for article content. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 09:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
******Which is why it was brought to deletion review. With all due respect, what part of "under discussion" do you not understand? '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 17:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
******Too be fair, PORNBIO has been enforced in the majority of porn star AfDs in the past few months, eg. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annie_Cruz_(2nd_nomination)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jasmine_Byrne], and half the participants in this AfD didn't feel PORNBIO should be ignored. [[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]] ([[User talk:Epbr123|talk]]) 09:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
******I took a look at AfD's citing PORNBIO over the first quarter of 2012 and was actually surprised to see it cited approvingly as often as it was.  However (with only [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Cruz (2nd nomination)|one exception]] that I noticed) it was cited in the form "fails WP:PORNBIO - delete".  That articles on performers who fail PORNBIO are deleted is a poor argument that those who pass it should be kept.  I.e. it is a necessary but perhaps not sufficient condition.  [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 11:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
*******Looking back over the past six months, three porn star articles have been kept for passing PORNBIO [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annie_Cruz_(2nd_nomination)][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jasmine_Byrne][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melissa_Monet], whereas this is the only one to be deleted despite passing PORNBIO. There's not enough evidence to suggest PORNBIO is rejected by the AfD community (although that doesn't necessarily mean they think it's totally fine as it is). [[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]] ([[User talk:Epbr123|talk]]) 12:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
********Agree, which I why I am suggesting a ''tuning'' of PRONBIO.  ANV awards are not all equally prestigious.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''endorse''' (and I'm one of the people who didn't vote in the original AfD). As Spartaz says, the current guideline in practice is more strict than  what used to be the case.  The relationship between the general and special notability guidelines is different in each case, and how they are interpreted depends on the community. In more detail:  When I came here 5 years ago, we used the fiction that meeting a special guideline was evidence that it would meet the general if enough work were done, but in more recent years they stand (or don't) on on the basis of how the community looks at the specific relationship. Community means the wider community, not the project. In some cases, e.g. PROF, MUSIC, and Geography,  the special guidelines used by people in that field (whether or not a formal guideline)  are thoroughly accepted. sometimes the situation is to some degree uncertain:  in Athletics it is not really clear to what extent they are accepted--sometimes they are judged too restrictive; for Airplane accidents the consensus is usually now much broader than the project would like, but the general consensus rules. In many cases there is a consensus but individuals disagree. For example,  for Books the special guideline is accepted — I think it is too lax, but as the consensus does not agree with me, they stand & I must accept that; for Pornbio the consensus now holds they are too lax, and those individuals who disagree must equally accept the overall consensus. As for the GNG, I'm very skeptical about the GNG, because what happens in an individual case depends on the judgment of the extent to which the sources are sufficiently independent to confer notability , and the answer to that depends on whether one wants to keep or delete the article. Similarly with awards: whether a given award confers notability depends on the award., and for some awards the answer depends on the desired result. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 19:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
**What exactly are you talking about? '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 06:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
***which part would you like explained further? Why I endorse the decision? What I think about the relationship of special to general guidelines? What I think about the significance of awards? I wrote somewhat extensively about the general points because other raised them, and I didn't agree with all they said,--though I did agree with their immediate conclusion  '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 16:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)  
*I won't add another "endorse" because I'm yet another person who participated in the AfD and I don't think the closer of this DRV needs any more input from debate participants.  What I ''will'' say is that the AfD involved a very large number of DRV regulars, and it was closed by Eluchil404 who is also a DRV regular.  While no individual person has done anything wrong, what's actually happening here is that we're endorsing at DRV a decision that ''we made'' at AfD.  This is, procedurally speaking, a bit of a problem.  It's simple [[:meatball:FairProcess|FairProcess]] that those who scrutinise a decision ought to be different people from those who made it in the first place.<p>Therefore, although my opinion is that the AfD decision should be endorsed, I'm also going to say that we shouldn't be the ones to endorse it.  Could we please pop a notice on the administrator's noticeboard asking for previously-neutral people to analyse the decision?—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
**Fair enough.  Are you thinking of a note to [[WP:AN]] when closing time comes around, or something else.  If the purpose is to attract fresh eyes to opine and not just close, I'm not sure what venue might be best.  There's no particular need to limit it to admins in that case (though that doesn't mean AN might not be the best place to get wide exposure).  There is some related discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO: yes or no? (maybe)]] but I see that no one left an actual link.  I'll add one there.
*:Also in agreement with [[User:S Marshall]], I won't be making a bolded comment.  As the closer whose decision is being reviewed both my position and bias should be obvious.  I think the close (especially with the discussion on Erpert's talk page) speaks for itself, but am happy to answer any questions someone might have.  Oh, and I take masculine pronouns if anyone cares.  It's not, perhaps, as obvious as it could be, because I don't want to give the impression that it matters, but, on the other hand, it's not meant to be a secret either.  [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 11:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
:*Errr, good point: not necessarily the administrator's noticeboard, but somewhere that will attract attention from experienced editors who haven't previously opined.  But, now that you mention it, I also think it would be best if this particular DRV were closed by someone who isn't a DRV regular.  I'm sure that all our usual closers are perfectly capable of screening out any bias or influence, but DRV is a place for scrupulous transparency and procedural rigour.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
*As the AfD nom and a DRV regular, I'll not be making a bolded statement.  That said, I do pretty strongly disagree with some of the delete !votes.  I think PORNBIO's use of awards is too permissive (by a fair bit) and subject to gaming.  However, I think subject guidelines should, in general, be followed (which quite a few !votes disagreed with).  In addition, the sourcing by the time of deletion was such that I'd not have nominated it as there is a strong argument the article met GNG (though the sources were far from perfect).  That said, it was pretty borderline article (in terms of the GNG and meeting an overly permissive SNG) so deletion wasn't an unreasonable outcome. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 18:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
**If the original nominator says that the article should have been kept now, that should count for something, shouldn't it? '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 04:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
***For the record, I'm not saying that.  It was borderline IMO.  I just tend to only nominate articles for deletion that are well below our inclusion guidelines. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 21:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::For the record, although I challenged only one of the added sources (to provide an example) during the AFD, the others fall short of meeting BLP requirements: The two remaining AVN citations were actually press releases (and the article references are oddly linked to the XBIZ copies of the PR rather than the AVN copies): the "El Diario" article does not come from any of the notable newspapers of that name, but to a wire service report on a news aggregation site, mentioning the performer briefly, and does not actually support the claimed biographical detail, but gives the wrong date for the performer's porn debut. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 21:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' Wow!  You can actually ignore any notability guideline you don't like now?  Interesting.  Can we ignore the rest of them too then?  An award notable in their industry proves they are notable.  And major porn stars pass [[WP:ENTERTAINER]] as well for having a large cult following. Anyway, the award mentioned is clearly listed in the porn bio guideline, so should've proven notability. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 20:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
**Good call on [[WP:ENTERTAINER]], DF; I didn't even think of that. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 04:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*I have contacted the four people that participated in the AFD who hadn't found their way here yet.  That really should be an automatic required bot. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 20:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

*DF, of course we as a community can ignore any notability  guideline we have made--in either direction. Guidelines have exceptions, and who is to judge of the exceptions but the interested members of the communities. The guidelines are not binding legislation. The notability guidelines least of all, for we are constantly making exception here--were we not, there would be no need of AfD in the first place. Perhaps this is not the best way to do things: perhaps we ought to have absolutely binding   rules to be determined mechanically, and a agreed resolution to keep to them as written, not and adjust as common sense may indicate. But we don't. We make our own rules, and we can apply them as we please. (This has the advantage of reducing the amount of legalistic quibbling, and increasing the role of common sense and individual judgment; it has the disadvantages of inconsistency, and liability to lobbying and prejudice.) Possibly this is the wrong choice, but that's the choice we're working under.  I am so accustomed to working within this pattern that I find it natural, but change will be up to the decisions of the people here, both now and in the future.  I think I accurately perceive what we actually do, but I wonder if others agree with my way of stating it. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 21:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
**I'd say you had it broadly right although the devil, as always, is in the details and the application of this. Its a given that many of wikipedia's policies are self contradictory against each other and are quite vague. That has developed organically over the years but does leave closing admins with a difficult balancing act when they close discussions and quite a lot of discretion. We have talked about this several times and I think that several themes have emerged. The first is that admins should close by a rough consensus not a vote count. Another theme is that consensus needs to reflect the wider community consensus and not just a narrow range of opinion around a particular subject. That's why, when something like the community hardening their approach to BLP we find ourselves with quite liberal SNGs on one hand and fairly restrictive things like BLP/N on the other. So what does the admin do? Generally, when there is a choice between positions the admin needs to weigh the local consensus with the local rules against wider community expectations and the fact that notability rules are guidelines which means they can be set aside by a decent consensus as long as the wider overarching policies V, BLP etc are met. This gray area is what we call the admin's closing discretion and there is actually a fault line between those that say the admins should go no consensus or keep and those that say the admin is free to chose between competing views if there is a wider overarching consensus/rulebase to apply. This is why the introduction of BLPPROD has had such a profound affect on deletion because now closing admins are faced with a growing acceptance ''across the entire community'' that BLPs on barely notable individuals where genuinely decent sourcing is absent aren't acceptable when SNGs say that they are.  On the other hand we have FOOTY and POLITICIAN that restrict articles where N/GNG is met and I think DRV would find it hard, if asked, to set aside a growing consensus around using sources to denote notability for inclusion rather than an SNG for exclusion. Well, at least that's how I generally vote. There are probably some very interesting papers to be written around group dynamics and community based decision making around this intersection of wikipedia rules and regulations but what we can say with certainty is that it's not going to get easier for the uninitiated to understand what the hell is going on here. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 17:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
***When there is an AFD where most people say Keep, an administrator can say those keeps don't matter and delete the article anyway for not meeting any notability guidelines, consensus thus ignored.  But even when something does meet the guidelines, it can still be deleted if the closing administrator feels like doing so.  Not a vote, doesn't matter how many people show up and say something you disagree with, you will close AFDs in the way you want, ignoring consensus and even guidelines.  Why not just skip the AFD process entirely and have administrators just decide based on what they personally like or don't like, or just flip a coin? [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 04:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
****That is, essentially, the system we already have.  I think most users know that most deletions are speedies or prods nowadays, and it's a given that some admins are more deletion-prone than others.  If you like, you can call our whole system "administrator's whim".  It's only different with ''contested'' deletions, where a user wishing to retain material can generally force an AfD.  Once that happens, the odds are quite stacked: AfD is hedged about with strongly inclusionist rules (which is as it should be), and supervised by DRV, which is also a rather inclusionist venue because it typically insists that the inclusionist AfD rules are strictly followed (and this is also as it should be).  But, Dream Focus, I'm afraid you need to accept that in any deletion system that's actually functional, ''some articles will still be deleted''.  This is particularly true when they concern unremarkable living people.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*****Let's not say unremarkable, just that we don't have evidence of others remarking about her. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
******It has already been established that there ''is'' evidence; it was just ignored for some strange reason. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*******No! The existence of suitable evidence was a directly focused question in dispute in the AfD. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
********Maybe it wasn't suitable to ''you'' (again, for some strange reason)... '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 00:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*********"Suitable" is usually subject to discussion.  To me, suitable requires that the source is independent (a third party source), and that there is at least one sentence says, in prose (which exludes lists), something about the subject.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 12:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
**********Yes, to ''you''. Exactly my point. One person can't just rewrite a guideline because s/he doesn't like it. And the endorsers are behaving as though the discussion is already closed, when it clearly isn't. That's why the deletion of the article was premature. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 14:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close''' While I voted ''keep'' at the AFD, and while I might feel that some of the arguments for deletion were weak, angry, or smacked of IDONTLIKIT, what the close reflected is the growing trend on Wikiedia to remove pornography topics unless their surpassing of [[WP:GNG]] or [[WP:ANYBIO]] is absolutely incontrovertible. The closer, in not using the AFD to re-write the slowly-being-deprecated PORNBIO, perhaps paid closer heed to the caveats of other guidelines seen as more pertinant in governing notability away from the weak one dealing with porn topics. And THAT reflects the consensus and application of guideline of the community as a whole.  Porn stars are for the most part sourced solely in porn media, so the close reflects the growing distaste of Jimbo and Wikipedia for the topic as a whole. And had keep arguments been more per [[WP:ACTOR]] and [[WP:ANYBIO]] and less of WP:PORNBIO, we'd still have the concern that the sourcing available comes from the industry itself. When [[Roger Ebert]] or ''[[Time]]'' or ''[[The New York Times]]''  starts giving space to porn, we can welcome a return of more properly sourced articles. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<span style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|<sup><small>MICHAEL Q.</small></sup>]]'' 22:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
**Wait...who said Jimbo Wales, much less Wikipedia as a whole, has distaste for porn? Even if that were the case, that alone isn't enough for deletion. And another thing, it isn't fair to expect someone like Roger Ebert to start reviewing porn. Pornographic films generally aren't shown in mainstream theaters, so mainstream film critics probably aren't going to pick up on it. And where does it say anywhere on Wikipedia that porn topics are flat-out going to be removed? '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 00:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)	
**:There have always been people that didn't want porn on Wikipedia, or even sex articles and nudity, while others wanted to keep that, and many others never stated an opinion at all.  That hasn't changed at all. And [[Wikipedia:Notability]] clearly states ''A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. '''A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right'''.'' And you can click the one for people, and it list the porn bio guideline there. You can't just decide that some people don't like something, so they can ignore the guidelines, and just delete it anyway. Some have always wanted to get rid of the subject-specific guidelines entirely. Can they ignore all of them now? Unless we have a banner at the top of the Wikipedia for everyone to see, telling them to participate in a poll on the subject, we can't be certain what the will of the Wikipedia is. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 00:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
***: @ [[User:Erpert]] If you recall, at the AFD HW trotted out a months-old quote from Jimmy's page... and when Jimmy speaks, so generally and eventually follows Wikipedia. As for "Wikipedia as a whole", that is intended to reflect that PORNBIO does not the depth of community support that it once did. And as is seen by the many porn topics which have been deleted of late at AFD, we have a re-alignment of community standards against the topic and toward a greater emphasis on BLP issues (not that anything in the article was particularly "harmful" to a porn actress). I supported your defense of the article at AFD, and had the arguments at the AFD been more strongly grounded in [[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:ANYBIO]], a deletion would have less likely an outcome. But, and even though [[WP:JIMMYLIKESIT]] or [[WP:JIMMYHATESIT]] is not a criteria, when the founder speaks, people listen.  '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<span style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|<sup><small>MICHAEL Q.</small></sup>]]'' 01:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
****Articles of all types get kept or deleted based on whatever small number of people shows up to participate in the AFDs, there is no precedence on Wikipedia.  The opinions of some people participating in some of the porn related AFDs you noticed recently, and/or that of the closing administrators, favored eliminating these articles?  Is that what you are saying?  I remember someone went and automated nominated a very large number of them at a time months ago, and while some went and found references to save a few of them, there were just too many to bother with, and most ended up being deleted.  The porn bio has been up for deletion multiple times including recently, and the majority of people wanted to keep it every time.  Consensus is that it is a legitimate guideline, and should be accepted as such. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 01:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*****"Legitimate" or not, it is among the least respected of the various notability SNGs. As we cannot force others to respect it or accept it, it becomes one that is often disregarded per consensus established one-by-one at AFDs.  And "IF" the article would have been unassailable under the more widely respected [[WP:GNG]] or [[WP:ANYBIO]] we would not be having this DRV. '''IF''' you feel you or Erpert could make it so, I would be willing to userfy it to either of you for such additional work. But note... it would '''have''' to be unassailable in order to even contemplate a return in the light of the consensus being formed by this DRV. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<span style="color:blue;">Schmidt,</span>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|<sup><small>MICHAEL Q.</small></sup>]]'' 04:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
******"It is among the least respected of the various notability SNGs"? [[WP:WEASEL|Says who]]? And I did read what Jimmy had to say, but as I asked in the original AfD, when did he say that he point blank doesn't like [[WP:PORNBIO]] and that it should be removed? Also as I said before, if he did think it should be removed, he could remove it himself. Anyway, the article was supposedly deemed "unassailable" (I actually had to look that word up, lol) because the closing admin ignored the guideline (I never could quite wrap my head around [[WP:IAR]], btw). Just because the original delete !votes had longer comments behind them doesn't necessarily mean that they held more weight than the keep !votes.
:::::::Side note: I normally don't take things to DRV, but the fact that an article can be deleted just because enough people don't like the guideline it passes just boggles my mind. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 04:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::*Actually, another thing, Schmidt; when you mentioned "the many porn topics which have been deleted of late at AFD", I think what you're really referring to are the porn topics that ''failed'' [[WP:PORNBIO]], not the ones that pass it. You can't just group all those up with ''this'' article and then use it as your basis for the apparent distate of porn on Wikipedia. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 04:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close'''. Dream Focus, why not find proof to support your claims that the notability guidelines should be followed, despite having many obvious flaws? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 14:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
**You need to provide proof that notability claims should be followed? First time I ever heard ''that'' one. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 14:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
***What, you've confused "guideline" with "law" again? For shame. But don't blame me for this argument, blame your compatriot Dream Focus, [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_Transfer&diff=283551499&oldid=283547473 since it's his]. And like a stopped clock, yes, he's right here, though Dream Focus's opinions on guidelines seems to depend directly upon whether they support the result he wants: if the guideline supports the result he wants, it's an iron-clad, must-follow rule; if not, it must be ignored for the Greater Good. My own opinion: WP:PORNBIO is worthless and should not replace WP:GNG -- and no SNG should. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 07:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 
*'''Endorse''' Pornbio is not an actual notability guideline, rather it is depreciated, but cannot be removed due to intransigence by some. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 14:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
::It is a guideline, and has been for years now.  I see it was there back in September of 2007. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29&oldid=161364438] Years go by, and after failing to get it deleted after yet another try, one administrator who doesn't like it decides to tag it with "dispute" over that section, and now people say they can ignore it because it doesn't count.  [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 17:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Exactly. And now we've gone from it being a faulty guideline to it not being a guideline at all? You endorsers really need to make up your minds.
:::And I know all about [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]], but I still have to ask...why is it that there are plenty of articles on porn actors who pass [[WP:PORNBIO]] by simply being nominated in multiple years, yet an article on an actor that actually won gets deleted? Can anyone explain to me the sense in that? '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 04:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
::::I'm afraid AfD has always been a lottery that depends on whether inclusionists or deletionists turn up to vote. [[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]] ([[User talk:Epbr123|talk]]) 10:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::The actual decisions at AfD,if consistent, and consistently endorsed here, are our true guidelines. Put simply, consensus can make any rule or exception it pleases. The way to challenge consensus is to bring a test case, as this one has apparently become.  What can consensus not do, besides violate the fundamental rules (&notability is not one of them) to the extent the foundation steps in?  
:::::And even without making exceptions, there are enough contradictions, ambiguities and terms used in s special meaning in the written guidelines to argue most AfDs, including this one, in any direction.  This is not a matter of inclusionism or exclusionism in general--if anyone hasn't noticed, there are some very generally inclusionist people !voting delete on this particular article. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 15:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::Because they're choosing to ignore [[WP:PORNBIO]]. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User:Erpert|Who ''is'' this guy?]]</span> | <span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|Wanna talk about it?]]</span></sup></small> 18:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Because it's been judged worthless, essentially. Which is, you know, a fault. Hence "faulty". The only "inconsistency" here -- your handwaving notwithstanding -- is HOW faulty a guideline.  I say faulty to the point of being dead as a doornail. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 07:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}