Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades

Lana Rhoades

Lana Rhoades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a Procedural Nomination. I am totally neutral in this and my nominating the article for deletion is not to be seen as a vote for deletion. Per previous discussion at Talk:Lana Rhoades, it would be helpful if editors were to vote to either Keep the article, or Redirect it to List of Penthouse Pets. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Delete & Redirect Keep is no option as the sourced biog is too small to support a standalone. Any sourced data can be mentioned in the list. Or not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:PORNBIO, which states, "The person has won a well-known and significant industry award." Not only has she won "a well known award", she's won two: an AVN Award, and an XBIZ Award, both of which are notable. --Kbabej (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Like Kbabej above says, she fulfills the WP:PORNBIO inclusion standard as she has won the New Starlet awards in both AVN and Xbiz Awards which are both the main awards for this specific industry. --Elysium1988 (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - NOTE: I've recently edited the article under consideration here, and I'm sure that it can be further expanded upon in the future. The subject of this article here has won the XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet in 2017, which meets the PORNBIO inclusion standard ("person has won a well-known and significant industry award"). Best New Starlet Awards are major adult film industry awards, as has been shown in at least several, recent AfDs. Guy1890 (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep As noted the xbiz Best New Starlet Award qualifies under PORNBIO inclusion standard "person has won a well known and significant industry award". Also the avn Fan Award for Best Newcomer. As I've pointed out in the past, as an example, Mia Malkova has apparently won only one award qualifying her for inclusion. There was the same argument going on with her, yet her profile is still there, as you may view here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mia_Malkova Apparently, absolutely nobody has answered this question as of yet. At least be consistent in your arguments. You all also refuse to answer the questions as to why her profile is still up, as it also does not have enough or very little information, based upon your statements in regard to this adult film star. Scenicview1 (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1
• Delete -- no SIGCOV has been presented at this AfD. The article contains no encyclopedicly relevant prose and is filled with trivia such as:

• "She was previously involved in cheerleading and gymnastics.[2][3] She has also mentioned in interviews that she loves baking, especially cupcakes.[4][3]"

A techical SNG pass is not a replacement for having independent reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Winning awards is not sufficient if not a single reliable source covers the subject in any manner, interviews and pornography media mentions do not qualify. Find several quality sources that cover this person and I'll change my vote. TheValeyard (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• I wrote a message above in regard to edits I made for Mia Malkova as well. I also added references and citations since some were incorrect previously or lead to an error page. Absolutely nobody here has answered my posts as to why her page is allowed to remain up with little or no information. She also has won only one major award, the same as Lana Rhoades. None of you have asked to take her article down. In fact, when I read past arguments for taking her profile down, there was almost unanimous agreement to keep her profile article up. Someone needs to explain this, since both profiles have very little information, and Mia Malkova has won one less prominent award. Scenicview1 (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1
• Keep Lana Rhoades is an AVN and XBIZ award winner and was nominated for a few more awards, that should be definitively a reason to keep. I personally would suggest a few optimizations, e.g. to eliminate some trivia and to concentrate more on facts, for example the main companies she worked with (e.g. Jules Jordan & Evil Angel), a complete enumeration of her nominations (AVN “Best New Starlet“ !!!) and to add a filmography. Meilerkarl (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Winning porn awards is not enough when zero reliable sources take note of it. Think it may time to realise that the insular world of pornography achievement is not something that the real world takes notice of. Also, for other readers or mods, note the curious account creation in 2016, dormant until taking part in this deletion discussion today and then editing the article. There is a strong whiff of outside meddling/collaboration within this and other porn deletions lately. TheValeyard (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Excuse me sir or madam, but what you express is your very own point of view. Porn actors/actrices are persons of public interest just like main stream actors/actrices. The porn industry each year creates sales of billions of dollars or euros and nobody takes note of it? Not seriously. Maybe Wikipedia decides to eliminate all porn contributions from their database for some reason. Then one have to accept it, otherwise not. The findings you made about my user account are right, but contribute definitely nothing to matter resp. to this discussion. Meilerkarl (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Porn actors/actrices(sic) are persons of public interest just like main stream actors/actrices" (sic)... Then you can of course provide evidence of this? In the form of reliable sources that demonstrate the public interest? TheValeyard (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Sources used in this article were discussed at WT:PORNO, and held to be generally reliable enough to be used in this BLP. Those claiming that the sources are unreliable are incorrect at minimum. Also, "delete" is not an option, as the subject is certainly notable enough to appear in the list. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• There are 9 citations in the article at present; the IMDB of porn (1), press releases announcing winners/nominees(4), and interviews appearing in a softcore magazine(1), a porn website(2), and a porn magazine(1). Porn-DB is out, press releases are out, interviews by the very outlets that give the awards (AVN and XBIZ) are not sufficiently independent, so the only usable sources for notability there are the magazines. Your entire premise for keeping rests on shaky WP:BLPPRIMARY grounds. TheValeyard (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• As I said when nominating, I am totally neutral as to whether the article stays as an article or is turned into a redirect. The sources were discussed at WikiProject level, and it was found that there were no serious BLP concerns. What I am not neutral on is people misrepresenting the situation because they don't like it. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• You're the editor making the most serious misrepresentations. The Porn Wikiproject has a long history of being out of step with BLP and RS principles, and resting any conclusion on a discussion there rather than at the appropriate policy discussion boards is irresponsible if not betraying serious competence issues. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails PORNBIO and, more importantly, the GNG. The only sources for substantive content in the article are a string of promotional interviews, some posted by retailers hawking product the subject appears in, with inconsistent and often contradictory claims. It's no secret that porn agents craft (using the term loosely) biographies to reflect the audiences' fetishes; that's why so many porn "actresses" claim to be gifted students who were cheerleaders and/or gymnasts. In this case, the subject's first agent, quoted in one of the sources, has a track record of fictionalizing even the most easily verified claims about his clients' careers. That an admin would rest their consclusions on the very local and contested "consensus" on a Wikiproject talk page rather than input on the BLP or RS talk pages from genuinely competent and experienced editors is discouraging but not at all surprising, and they should recuse from further action here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious to learn about Mark Spiegler's alleged track record of fictionalization and how it has contributed to this article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please also discuss whether this could be redirected as proposed if you !vote delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)