Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monique Alexander (2nd 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 delete. Wizardman 21:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Alexander

Monique Alexander (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)

Subject fails current WP:PORNBIO requirements. Pax 03:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I won't make a comment on her looks as that would be very inappropriate of me wouldn't it, Anyway unfortunately fails PORNBIO + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award wins. Fails GNG without substantial coverage by reliable sources. Searches for RS coverage yield announcements and reprinted press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - winner of AVN Award. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not any AVN award counts. Group scenes are not applicable (and "All-girl"-whatever is not a significant award for individual merit). Pax 04:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mr. Subtropical's "winner of AVN Award" entry above is plainly against the current version of WP:PORNBIO, which excludes group awards. The consensus of the Wikipedia community trumps personal opinions regarding a notability guideline, thus this vote should be discarded in the final tally. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it. Please do not write about my person and my vote. I have the right to vote and you have no right to troll my voice only because it is a different opinion. Also, I agree with opinions by GuzzyG and Rebecca1990. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Subtropical-man:, I am heartened to hear the fact that you have now read WP:PORNBIO, but a slight problem remains. WP:PORNBIO states "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.", yet Ms. Alexander's 4 AVN wins are for "All-Girl (2)", "Couples (1)", and "Group Sex (1)" categories. Can you explain how "winner of an AVN award" is valid, when the guideline you're basing that vote on excludes the types of awards that the subject has one? Tarc (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...besides I think, Monique Alexander is notable independently of several awards. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Has received coverage both within the industry ([1] & [2]) and outside of it ([3] & [4]) Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Linking to a search for the subject at XBIZ and AVN is extremely lame and if you want to cite sources you need to actually cite a source not provide the porn equivalent of a google search. Complex is a dreadful source - tabloid and the about link doesn't link anything and being 20 something in a random list of pornstars for some reason doesn't appear in the GNG or PORNBIO. The FT link is the best of the bunch as it by a proper reporter who interviews her at the end. Its not an article about here but there are nods in the direction of notability there even if it is a bit thin in my opinion. I would say that this on its own isn't enough but 3-4 similar sources would be good enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The FT link appears to be behind a paywall. Tarc (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Meets WP:PORNBIO #3 too ("Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media"):

1. Was interviewed on Chelsea Lately ([5])

2. Appeared in an episode of Entourage ([6])

3. Participated in a debate about pornography on Nightline ([7])

4. Appeared on Red Eye to discuss a sex education study ([8]) Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rebecca1990's reasoning. Dismas|^(talk) 21:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As usual, rebecca1990's reasoning is flawed, digging up te same brief name-drops and unreliable sources. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Trivial mentions in fashion magazines, e.g. "top 100 porn stars", do not satisfy the notability guidelines, nor does the subject meet any criteria of wp:pornbio. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am going to have to say keep to this due to being in a mainstream ABC Nightline televised debate held at yale to discuss pornography, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2008/2/22/yale-grants-self-one-week-of/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/11/idUS174192+11-Feb-2008+BW20080211 add that with what Rebecca found (was interviewed as a guest on a late night tv show!), cameo in a mainstream cable tv show (Entourage) plus her HBO softcore work, according to her imdb a minor role in the mainstream film Crank: High Voltage those added up fit WP:PORNBIO N3 well in my mind, also we should not discount the 4 minor awards yes they are minor but combined with the appearances it should nudge her over our guidelines. Remember not everyone wins the "best" award in their career but seeing as she gets chosen for debates on Fox News and at Yale, plus the multiple appearances in mainstream media + her four minor awards should make up for no major award and finally a talk radio gig http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece.php?id=84904&mi=all&q=tera. GuzzyG (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Invalid. The college newspaper covers the debate and mentions Ms. Alexander a single time in a single sentence. As for Reuters, did you note the "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release" line at the top of the link? Press releases are specifically excluded from notability consideration, per WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reuters is not responsible? and what? I do not see anything wrong. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 14:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a part of (emphasis mine) ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent" (WP:GNG) that you find unclear? Tarc (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read intro of Wikipedia:Notability (including WP:PORNBIO, WP:GNG): "It is a generally (sic. not officially) accepted standard that editors should (sic. not must) attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense (sic. !!!), and occasional exceptions may apply (sic. !!!). Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page". So, fails current WP:PORNBIO, WP:GNG (both parts of Wikipedia:Notability) requirements is not synonym for automatic removal. If there are the opinions to keep the article, this article should be keep. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it fails to pass either the GNG or PORNBIO. /slow clap Tarc (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even, if fails GNG/PORNBIO - there are doubts as to whether, GNG/PORNBIO is not mandatory and this is not official rule to compulsory use with no exceptions. Monique Alexander is encyclopedic person for many users, so. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in altering guidelines that have been agreed to by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, then by all means feel free to raise those ideas in the appropriate venue. That is how editors tightened WP:PORNBIO to exclude group awards and multiple nominations recently. Like it or not, we discuss deletions via the criteria that we have, not the criteria that we wish we could have, to paraphrase Don Rumsfeld. You're also resorting to an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument now, which is not valid in an AfD. Your voting record, in case you are interested, is currently running at a 26.1% success rate. Being wrong isn't a wiki-crime, but it may be somewhat of an indicator as to how far afield an editor is from best practices in the project. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote above "Please do not write about my person and my vote". Apply to this. Next your post about my person will be automatically reverted, reason: trolling and personal attack and spamming. This page is Articles for deletion/Monique Alexander, not about me. By the way, how do I know if current WP:PORNBIO is not prank by some IP? Where is consensus about current WP:PORNBIO requirements? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When editors ignore established guidelines and make poor arguments to support their deviations, I will call them out on that. As for how do I know if current WP:PORNBIO is not prank by some IP, I cannot even begin to fathom how to respond to something so absurd. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again: where is (please link) consensus for current WP:PORNBIO requirements? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be nice today and point out the RfC in question. Tarc (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did not know that about Reuters so i apologize, but i do believe the debate, the talk show interview and other stuff should push her over GNG, either way i don't mind, i will admit that i do think Pornography inclusion guidelines are very strict and if this was a mainstream film actress she would pass, but that's a discussion for WP:PORNBIO. Thank you for that tool by the way Tarc shame my record is 36%, bad judgement with the table hockey tournaments, live and learn! Subtropical-man we as editors can't ignore policy as that would defeat the point of the project even if i myself disagree with some WP:PORNBIO or WP:PERP, says more about the media who don't report on pornography then anything anyway. GuzzyG (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet the notability requirements for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pretty much for the reasons given by Tarc. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Decent sourcing hasn't emerged so I'm going to go with my comments on Rebecca1990's vote above and say this isn't across the line. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the only mentions are trivial and do not meet the GNG by any stretch of the imagination. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2015 (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.