Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Bell Peaks

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. RL0919 (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Bell Peaks

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: none of the references currently in the article constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. #1, #6, and #9 are database entries. #2, #3, and #4 are interviews/profiles on sketchy websites. (Please note that these are NSFW.) #10 is a gimmicky listicle of pornographic performers' political views which includes a short quote from Ms. Peaks. The remaining refs are industry award rosters or press releases: the awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and didn't find significant biographical coverage, only several other gimmick "pornographic actors share their views on Foo" articles with quotes from her, some based on the youtube series "Ask A Pornstar": [1][2]; news coverage of her appearance at a South African pornography expo[3]; some more interviews[4][5]; and assorted passing mentions. Cheers, gnu 57 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The award wins didn't count even when WP:PORNBIO was in effect. The article fails to cite non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. My own search for sources makes me agree with the nominator. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ I created this article when WP:PORNBIO was in effect. With time, Anna Bell Peaks has received steady significant coverage. This AVN article states As in years past, Anna Bell Peaks had great media exposure in 2018. In April she was mentioned in an article in GQ magazine for building her brand and making herself one of the last few true porn stars. And indeed, there are multiple non trivial coverage about her. But it is a little difficult to find using conventional search engines. If one turns off the "safe search", and enables explicit content; then they would see many results. According to this AVN article: Last year Anna won Perfect Pussy and Best Girl/Girl Scene with Felicity Feline for Brazzers’ “Bloodthirsty Biker Babes.” In 2017 she took home trophies for Best Tits, Best Model Website, Scene of the Year with Small Hands for Squirt or Die (BurningAngel), and Best Group Scene with Nikki Hearts, Leigh Raven and Chad Alva for Cindy Queen of Hell (BurningAngel). In 2016 she won Starlet of the Year and Best Model Website. On August 7, 2019; she hosted YNOT cam awards [6] [7].
Other significant coverage, including some shared but still non-trivial coverage (in most of the articles) includes these articles: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and (xbiz listing of the award nominations). People from adult industry arent usually covered in mainstream media/coverage. Thats one of the reasons why WP:PORNBIO was created. Even though not mainstream, Peaks has received steady enough significant coverage in reliable sources from porn industry to satisfy WP:GNG. She also passes #2 of WP:ENT per this, and this. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took back my vote at 17:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC). —usernamekiran(talk) 17:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @Usernamekiran: All of those AVN articles are press releases/PR content: note that the urls are https://avn.com/business/press-release/.... I have no idea how significant the YNOT cam award ceremony is within the pornography industry, but the announcements/advertisements for it don't amount to independent coverage of Ms. Peaks. The other sources you've suggested are more gimmicky "pornstar opinions on Foo" articles, mainly tabloid churnalism of the "Ask a Porn Star" youtube series: for instance, the Daily Mail and Sun articles both cover a youtube video in which about a dozen different pornographic actresses talk about alternate career paths; both include the same short quote from Ms. Peaks. Cheers, gnu 57 17:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- PORNBIO was deprecated because, shunned by reliable mainstream sources, porn is all too often left with promotional sources and the porn itself. That is not a good basis for verifiable and balanced articles. The AVN articles are clearly marked as press releases (promotional primary sources). Tabloids like The Sun are not reliable, and WP:DAILYMAIL is expressly banned as a reference for verification of facts or as evidence of notability. The other sources, as the nominator states, are "ask a pornstar" quotations constitute trivial coverage. As for awards, without acknowledgement of an achievement by independent reliable sources, they don't count as significant enough the satisfy WP:ENT and winners lists are too trivial to satisfy WP:BASIC. The rationale behind PORNBIO (as with other SNG's) was that reliable source coverage would likely be found eventually. I subscribed to that belief myself. However, after 12 years, consensus is that the PORNBIO rationale does not hold water. Even when PORNBIO was in effect, award nominations were removed because award ceremonies (AVN especially) tend to nominate almost everybody for something. AFAIK, the Inked Award never met the "well-known and significant industry award" test in PORNBIO or even the ultra-permissive award-has-a-Wikipedia-article test of 12 years ago. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on most of the points presented by both of you. But it is not an isolated coverage. The subject/Peaks receiving coverage is a routine thing, persistence. That is something for a person from porn industry. Also, (for a pornstar) 1 million followers is quite a fanbase, as stated by few sources. Thus passing #2 of WP:ENT. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete press releases do not lead to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: and what about #2 from WP:ENT? —usernamekiran(talk) 07:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, without acknowledgement from independent WP:RELIABLE sources, claims of satisfying any criterion of WP:ENT cannot be substantiated. Republished press releases don't cut it. • Gene93k (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, but sometimes we have to use WP:COMMONSENSE, than being a total bureaucrat/wikilawyer. We are talking about a porn actress with more than a dozen award wins, and 1 million followers. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not wikilawyering to state the PORNBIO is dead and that it was killed for good reasons. And to restate an important point: porn awards are considered self promotion by the porn industry. Counts of Twitter followers are controversial even in the mainstream, never mind in an industry notorious for bombing the net with self promotion. Internet flooding was a concern written into the original PORNBIO guideline way back in 2006. Porn can be notable, but it needs coverage by trustworthy sources. The new consensus is that exempting porn from regular demands for quality sources was bad policy. It's not about bureaucracy, it's about Wikipedia's maturing as a credible reference work. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not know why anybody is discussing PORNBIO since it no longer exists. I agree with Gene93k. According to our current standards, which are the only standards that count now, this person is not notable. A "million followers' is marketing baloney in the age of lying bots, fake social media accounts, and stacked voting. What we need is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, not porn industry sources that lie all the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "I Banged My Tattooed Stepsister in the Ass" is a seminal masterpiece and was robbed at the Oscars that year, but the coverage in media outside of AVN and other in-house/in-porn-industry media does not exist for this person. Zaathras (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previously mentioned reasons.--NL19931993 (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above arguements. Fails GNG and other notability guidelines.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2019 (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.