Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Malkova (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Malkova

edit
AfDs for this article:
Mia Malkova (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)

The subject of this article "may" not meet the guidelines for notability. Scenicview1 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]

I'm not an expert in articles of deletion but it appears this article was under consideration, at one point in the past. I'm submitting this again under 2nd nomination. Since there are clearly not many reliable sources and only one major award given. The AVN, XRCO, and XBIZ awards were not one of the major categories of awards given. Only one separte award from AVN meets the standard of a major award, which was the Best New Starlet award. For Reference number 4, there is no clickable entry to verify this reference. Reference 2 and 5 is debatable as to whether a Twistys award or mention of an award, is worthy of inclusion. Reference 6 is clearly written from a blog, not as reliable as the Adult DVD Talk interview.[1] The blog indicated in Reference 6 looks like a minor, opinionated and unverified source clearly from a blog, as stated. Written in extremely simplified terms, with photographs attached, from a blog that usually does not write about adult performers. In fact, if you read the article up to near the end, it is jokingly insinuated that it looks like a porn production. The photographs could be for a video, for all we know. There is also no certificate of authenticity to verify what was going on in the photographs. Just someone who writes a blog that does not usually involve adult performers. It also lists a twitter account as proof, but who is to know whether that is real. It may have been created just for this blog site.[2] The name mentioned as her friend, under the career section, is also unverified. Finally, when you click on Reference 8, you are lead to an error page, with no verifiable information provided. I'm a fan of Mia Malkova, but seriously wonder if one major AVN Award under the Best New Starlet award category, deserves an article or profile on wikipedia. There is also a lack of personal information in regard to her profile. Understandable, perhaps, given the industry she is in. Mentioning a Twisty award of the month or Twisty award of the year, is questionable since this is not a major award or may be debatable as such. Whether it deserves even a mention in her article page, with only one verifiable reliable source, is also questionable at best. I do not want a deletion, but if someone may provide more information, references, etc. and more awards, rather than just one major award, then please add that information. Otherwise, consideration for deletion may be possible. This article does not meet established guidelines of WP:PORNBIO If it does meet it, then it is meeting only one established guideline. Scenicview1 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jack, Captain. "Pornstar Interviews by Captain Jack". Adult DVD Talk.
  2. ^ Covucci, David. "People Who Do It on Camera For Money Can Find Love". Bro Blog.
  • Correction. It appears to meet at least one established guideline or possibly two for WP:PORNBIO. Under the category of the AVN award for Best New Starlet and XBIZ award for Best Actress in a Feature Release production.

We may still leave this open to debate. I still think someone or people involved with putting up her profile on wikipedia, need to find better References or ones that are more legitimate, considering the number of performances she has done. It shouldn't be hard to find interviews, news stories, biographies, topics, etc., related to her online, unless she kept things mostly private. At least, if possible, replace Reference 8 which leads to an error page. I have no disagreement if the decision is made to keep her profile or article, considering that it appears she has won at least two Awards, one from AVN and one from XBIX, in different recognized categories. Scenicview1 (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Neutral Keep - at the moment I reserve judgement but will continue to monitor and research the topic. Given the industry in which she is involved and it's status in society, it may be hard to come by reliable third party references due to the aversion to the subject matter by most mainstream publications. I initially clicked on this AfD discussion because the name itself was immediately familiar to me despite my initial inability to place it. It may be difficult to assess notability on this particular individual and some thought should be given towards assessing how she and similar persons in this field are vetted and also how notability for such persons has been established in the past. unak1978 20:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further perusal, apparently my particular concerns are not unfounded, nor has it not been discussed before. Criteria for notability in this particular field should follow WP:PORNBIO. I will look into the discussion and this criteria in order to offer a more informed opinion. unak1978 20:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussion and consensus from those on the WikiProject Pornography, there seems to be ample consensus that singular award wins were enough to establish notability. In addition, the AVN and XRCO awards are specifically mentioned as being highly regarded enough to establish notability in this field. She's won two AVN awards and one XRCO, albeit all in the same calendar year, that's a separate discussion since they have not determined longevity to be a determinant. Based specifically on the accepted guidelines, as well as the supported references documenting those awards, I'm comfortable with keeping this article. unak1978 20:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is seriously misinformed. The cited discussion page, [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors), has been moribund for a decade, because the separate SNG has been subsumed into the broader guideline for people. The issues the poster describes as "not discussed before" have been discussed at length and resolved at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). In particular, the idea "that singular award wins were enough to establish notability" is blied by repeated discussions, including the most recent one still visible on that talk page. The Wikiproject has no authority to set standards in that area, and the broader community has settled, by strong and repeated consensus, on stricter standards. Unak 78, I hope you will take the time to review the current and recent discussions on the general subject, including some formal RfCs, and recognize the error in your argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please modify your tone. The opening in particular. If you want to discuss my opinion with me, you can do so in a respectful manner and I'd be happy to revisit it. However I choose not to become engaged in a snark contest. If you take issue with this, then contact an administrator regarding my current stance and I will answer for this. Otherwise you're welcome restate your issue with my opinion in a more civil manner or debate it with one of the other editors here. I will not respond again to another comment with a similarly worded header. Thank you. unak1978 22:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is nothing uncivil about pointing out that your argument ignores the current consensus about application of the pertinent SNG. What is uncivil is your posturing that pointing out gross errors in your argument is disrespectful. You show no respect for other editors when you refuse to respond to well-earned criticism. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with your statement completely, that due to the nature of the business, there may increasingly be issues of privacy involved. This in turn leads to the lack of specific facts and data, other than major and acclaimed Awards being given. I mentioned this in regard to another debate about another adult performer on wikipedia. Although that performer had done a number of different online interviews with various adult internet sites and even on youtube. If a performer has a residence in a certain city and enjoys playing at a local tennis court for instance, and that is discussed in a biography or interview, for example, that may lead to invasion of privacy or unwanted knowledge of that particular performer. Even if the residence is known but not the specific tennis court. Nowadays, the performer unfortunately may leave out those specific details and stick with more topics of her profession. Due to the explicit nature discussed, it would also not necessarily be included in a very open profile on wikipedia as well. Since the awards are held yearly, those who acquire the top award from each major adult show, should probably deserve a mention and one or two photographs of the performer on the profile or article on this site. Also given that minor mainstream television or movie actresses and actors are given more recognition, in some cases starring in a minor role, on this site as well, it would only be fair to just include the few Award winners in the adult industry each year, who deserve being recognized. Even in cases where they only won one major Award from a recognized Adult Award show. Scenicview1 (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]
    • Comment - Yes, this particular set of SNG guidelines are pretty broad by Wikipedia standards and the parties responsible for establishing consensus on the subject could do well to establish further guidelines. However there is no simple solution for an industry that is, by nature, as selectively publicized as this one is. More work should be done on the entire issue, however I felt it necessary to take into account how issues of privacy affect how members of the industry may aspire to control just how much content exists about them in the media. Even some of the more notable members do not always provide accurate personal information and take steps to ensure that such is not available anywhere online where it might easily be accessed. Even a Wikipedia article such as this might find itself at odds with the very performer that it pertains to for being too accurate with certain information depending on how and where it was obtained. unak1978 18:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is another case where the performer has won a significant award but the sources are low quality. This is a technical PORNBIO pass with AVN Best New Starlet and the XBiz Best Actress (feature) wins. However, there is nothing near significant coverage by independent reliable sources here. The porn trade press coverage appears to be the usual republished press releases. No legitimate claim of passing WP:BASIC. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- none of the keep voters have shown how this subject meets GNG. A technical SNG pass is not a pass for a content-free article. Redirect to the AVN Awards page then. For comparison, please see:
K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please elaborate. Is the issue the amount of content/direct references in this article or how notability is established by the author per WP:PORNBIO? The issues that this particular topic carries seems to require a nuanced approach, but I would prefer to be better informed if possible. You could be helpful in that regard. unak1978 23:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 05:25, 15 May 2017 (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/Mia_Malkova_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1140115712"
  NODES
admin 3
chat 1
COMMUNITY 1
Idea 1
idea 1
INTERN 1
Note 6
Project 4
twitter 1
Verify 2