Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Givens

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Gang_bang_pornography#Other_gangbang_records . Redirect !votes had stronger arguments, and they are WP:CHEAP. Nothing near a consensus for an actual article to be kept. Information to be merged can be done through history.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Givens[edit]

Victoria Givens (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 PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards or nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Just kayfabe based on press releases. A BLP fiasco. PROD removed without substantive explanation or article improvement by IP without prior edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off...thanks, I needed that image in my head O.o. I'm in pain just thinking about this woman. Before I vote, is there any criteria for record holders? Does being a world record holder impact notability? Certainly 101 is quite a feat, would that have any bearing on this? Personally, I would forget the whole porn bio criteria and consider that aspect rather than debate her notability as a porn star. Bali88 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: my vote is Merge to gang bang pornography. That's a pretty impressive record. I think it is worth a mention.

  • Delete. Without non-trivial interest from reliable sources, this performer fails both PORNBIO and GNG. Any claims this record is a unique contribution to porn or an otherwise notable achievement need RS coverage to back them up. Otherwise this is just hype. I am only finding press releases in a search for reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think uncertified claims of world records count for notability purposes. I presume this wasn't in the Guinness book of records? BLPs must be sourced properly so this is an autofail Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think this is a pretty impressive record. I tried to look up this record and it has lots of mentions, but its all on a bunch of porn sites, which I don't particularly want to look at. I don't know which sites are considered reliable or whatever, but I don't think it's unverified, it appears to be legit as it has been described widely online. And I mean...if someone wants to verify it, it's on video. This is not something that I think I want to go to the trouble of verifying, but if someone is in doubt, the video is out there. -_- Bali88 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not all records are notable. If no-one has written about it in an independent reliable source we can be sure that the record is not notable and hosting an article based on our own viewing of a film is very much original research.. Spartaz Humbug! 09:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to rise to the level of notability required by the gudelines for pornographic actor biographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gang_bang_pornography#Other_gangbang_records - After doing some searching & recently editing the article in question here, it appears to me that the best course of action at this time would be to redirect this subject's name to the primary thing that she is currently noted for, which is participating in a gangbang record. I do not concede that the subject's article currently has no "reliable sourcing" at all, and I am personally not a fan of this subject's work.
I could see how one could make an argument that this subject here has "made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre" or has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" though. Guy1890 (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent idea. Bali88 (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With multiple reliable sources this actress pass WP:GNG the article has WP:RS and is a keep. Valoem talk 22:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • You can't call a self-penned letter and regurgitated press releases reliable sources. Spartaz Humbug! 23:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I am looking at this: AVN Givens, XBiZ Givens, and this google books reference. What I am seeing per WP:GNG and WP:RS is significant coverage from reliable sources in this genre according to the ProjectPage's requirements. Google books is considered the most reliable. This actress has had significant coverage. Every genre has different sources considered reliable. Video games has Kotaku, Wired, Gamespot, and others. Poker has PokerNews, Cardplayer, and Bluff Magazine. Porn has AVN and AIN so I am making this judgment from the precedence set on porn RS. To require CNN, NYT, Forbes, or major publications does not appear to be a requirement for determining notability in this genre. Valoem talk 00:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So these are not what you relied on earlier? No? Also, I'm afraid that you need to specify the sources and not just link to search pages. I looked at some random articles from your search and they were all regurgitated press releases. Both AVN and Xbiz are notorious for reprinting press releases so you need to analyze the actual reference to determine if its independent. The company press byline and contact to the webmaster is a classic giveaway that its not independent. Can you list any sources you think are NOT regurgitated press releases? The book you linked doesn't show the actual reference to Givens so for all we know its a cast listing. You cannot rely on any of those things without being able to properly examine them. Spartaz Humbug! 08:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Guy1890 — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please can the closing admin not potential canvassing [1]. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 08:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In regards to the canvassing, it was an outreach for the opinions from members of the porn project. I was confused specifically about this which states stated Xbiz is a RS with no further information. I tried to leave neutral messages for unbiased opinions, my concern at the time, was due to the lack of response from members of the wikiproject. I have no editorial history with any of the editors and found all of them here (went down the list). Valoem talk 13:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to gang bang pornography. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Comment, I found some more sources that may establish more notability:[reply]

Sources with reliable questionable:

1 - no byline and its about an interview. The actual interview is a primary source and does not count for this reason. No comment on whether the source of the interview is notable anyway. Its a commercial site of some description.
2 - Not a RSas far as I can see. No named reporters, no evidence of fact checking etc.
3 - Obviously not a RS. Looks like a press release, no byline.
4 - Has a byline, mostly quotes which count as primary sources. Once you discount them there isn't enough for this to be a substantial secondary source.
5 - Where is the content on Givens? Its an unreliable schedule of the Stern show. Not even close.
6 - Looks like a press release.
So in short. No. None of this is helping and in fact you are strengthening the delete side by showing how weak the sourcing is. I mean, she claims to have set a world record but you can't find any after the event reporting? Seriously? Everything you have found looks like promoting the event not regular reporting. Spartaz Humbug! 10:38, 29 March 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victoria_Givens&oldid=1138739935"