Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abella Anderson (3rd nomination)

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.  Sandstein  10:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abella Anderson (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Some AVN and XBIZ nominations but no wins. A couple of NightMoves People's Fan's Choice wins are not enough. Only refs are IAFD, nomination announcements and AVN mention of NightMoves wins in long list of all winners for that year (i.e. fleeting mentions). The third recreation of this article seems part of a pattern aimed at creating a higher profile for non-notable (or at least not-yet-notable) pornographic actors David in DC (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:PORNBIO. She has won two awards and has five nominations and more than half of them are performer awards including the AVN Best New Starlet Award. Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this retired porn actress actually fails WP:PORNBIO per norms as explained in above deletion request. Nightmoves Award is insignificant. The article indicates that during her brief career she had failed to a established a consistent "porn identity" (c.f. using different aliases) and had not worked with any notable production agency - just porn websites - which means that the article would fail at WP:V if anyone tried to add more facts. Accordingly I suggest - delete per nom. BO | Talk 21:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PORNBIO. Pardon, but even excluding the arguable notability of the "Nightmoves Awards" seeming to meet WP:GNG for notability within the porn industry,[1] [2] and even in discounting her many scene-related or ensemble nominations, we can see look to Pornbio's stating "or has been nominated for such an award several times" and consider her 'Best New Starlet' AVN Awards nomination AND her 'New Starlet of the Year' XBIZ nomination. Industry recognitions that will not make it to the headlines on The New York Time. And As she has retired, we cannot predict what she will or will not do in the future that may or may not be newsworthy or notable... so it would be speculation to flatly state that "the article would fail at WP:V if anyone tried to add more facts". As with ALL BLPs, any fact added must be sourcable to appropriate sources or be removed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clear failure to meet the requirements of WP:PORNBIO. By long-established consensus over many articles, NightMoves awards do not contribute notability. Scene nominations do not contribute to notability, nor does having one's name in the title of a non-notable release nominated for an award. Similarly, nominations for comparable awards (like "best new starlet") from different organizations in the same awards cycle have repeatedly been found insufficient to satisfy the "several times"/"multiple times" criteria of the awards guidelines. In the absence of any reliably sourced biographical content, and certainly none indicating notability, this falls well below consensus standards for inclusion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)

  I do not think we should be so much concerned with NightMoves awarding the same sort of awards as did AVN and XBIZ, as we should that the latter two made those nominations themselves independently from the NightMoves organization. Genre peer recognition is peer recognition. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Listen, the fact that she won 2 awards that are FAN'S CHOICE awards shows that she is indeed notable among fans, if not, they wouldn't have voted for her. It doesn't matter if the Nightmoves Awards aren't as big as the AVN or XBIZ Awards. In addition to the Nightmoves Awards, she has received multiple award nominations from AVN and XBIZ which are both notable award ceremonies and most of her awards and nominations are performer awards. She was was named the number 8 most popular porn star by Complex magazine and if you look at her twitter you will notice she has over 200,000 followers which is a big number in comparison to other porn stars. Her twitter account is also verified and very few porn stars have verified twitter accounts. Not only is she clearly notable to fans, but she also passes WP:PORNBIO with her awards and nominations. Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Listen, A) Fan's Choice (even in ALL CAPS) is irrelevant. notability as defined on wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with being "notable among fans." B) The question about the relative "bigness" of NightMoves vs AVN and XBIZ is irrelevant, too. Up above there seems to be a difference of opinion about whether NightMoves awards are sufficiently notable. but HW is rarely wrong about "long-established consensus over many articles..." And MQS is rarely wrong about much of anything. So I'll let the closer decide who has the better take on that topic. C) I'm not familiar with Complex magazine. Please read WP:RS. If Complex magazine fits under this definition of what's a "reliable source" on wikipedia, by all means, add it to the article. D) How many followers she has on a verified twitter account. Really? Really?! I'm dumbstruck. David in DC (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Disregarding Nightmoves Awards from consideration is correct, as well as the interpretation of PORNBIO by MichaelQSchmidt is also correct. On the other hand I see how two individual nominations in the same year are the lower grade of "several nominations". Complex magazine rank helps just a little. Borderline notability but ultimately I can't say "no notability". Cavarrone (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2013 (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.