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. slakr^\ talk / 09:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carmella Bing[edit]

Carmella Bing (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)

• Delete - A non-notable pornstar who fails WP:PORNBIO. She has no award wins, no mainstream popularity, no Hall of Fame inductions, no unique contributions to porn. Redban (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete more or less per nom. While the UKAFTA award may be minimally notable, it nevertheless falls well below the higher "well-known"/"significant" included in PORNBIO. The short-lived award ceremony (a for-profit event, not associated with any notable awarding organization) gained its limited notoriety for various publicity stunts it staged; the awards themselves were insignificant and scantly reported if reported at all. (The reference in this article, for example, is a self-published fansite/database). One award-winner commented "it seemed that all it took to win awards was a few phone calls to the right people and an advance payment for a full table at the event".[1] The awards had a reputation among British porn fans for being "fixed" [2]; while such posts aren't conclusive evidence, it is certainly remarkable, even for porn awards, that performers like Jamie Brooks won awards for videos that don't exist. In the absence of substantive evidence demonstrating the significance of the award, it should count for nothing, and there is no other support advanced for this performer's claim to notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO because she has won a well-known and significant industry award; UK Adult Film and Television Award's Best Overseas Female Performer. Here's an AfD for a UK Adult Film and Television Award recipient which resulted in a keep consensus. None of the above arguments are good reasons to disregard the award. Redban: She did win an award, it's listed in her article, and not having mainstream popularity or Hall of Fame inductions does not counteract her winning an award. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: 1. The ceremony's length of time is irrelevant. 2. I'm sure nearly everyone who has been nominated for that award attended the ceremony and spend money on tickets, a table, food, etc. but only one person per category won, so what makes you think that had anything to do with how they chose the winners? 3. Pretty much every awards ceremony, both porn and mainstream, has been accused of being rigged by either people within the industry who were angry because they didn't win, or fans who were angry that their favorites didn't win, and like you said yourself, those posts are not "conclusive evidence" for those claims. 4. That Jamie Brooks scene probably does exist. Perhaps it's a website scene, which is why it doesn't show up on IAFD, which only keeps track of films distributed on VHS/DVD/Blue-ray etc. and not internet-only adult content. And there shouldn't be any controversy over the existence of an awarded film for Bing since her award was for her entire body of work for that year, not a particular film. Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, I'm not convinced that the UK Adult Film and Television Awards is significant enough, for reasons stated by Hullaballo Wolfowitz. I also don't believe that other consensuses should guide our doings because other editors get it wrong (See: Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for any purpose). Still, even if I accept your argument that the award is "well-known and significant," observe that WP:Pornbio says, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The primary claim to notability is the person's being ""worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" and his or her page having "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Look at Carmella Bing's page, particularly the references. All we have is iafd, the UK adult film awards, and information regarding her arrest for drugs (which I feel is an invasion of privacy). Even if you leave the sensitive information about her arrest, she still fails WP:GNG for lacking sources independent of the subject. Redban (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, please don't misrepresent my comments, or established facts. When you say that IAFD "only keeps track of films distributed on VHS/DVD/Blue-ray etc. and not internet-only adult content" you're not telling the truth, and you know it. Every IAFD performer page says, plain as day, "Titles that are highlighted are web scenes", even performers like Linda Lovelace, who stopped making porn before the internet was even a gleam in Al Gore's eye. When an award winner admits that his award was bought-and-paid-for, attributing the claim to a "sore loser" is ridiculous. And if you say that the MIA award-winning "Cream Bunz" probably was an internet scene, it's remarkable that not one British fan who participated in the discussions of the awards knew this, or that the award announcement didn't mention the website, an omission I've never seen in any such award announcement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PORNBIO. Mhhossein (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The UK Adult Film and Television Awards are certainly "well-known" within the UK and the "Best Overseas Female Performer" award is a "significant industry award" - roughly comparable to the "Female Foreign Performer of the Year" award that's been given out by the AVN Awards. Again, all that's required here is that the sources be independent of the subject of the article in question, which here is Carmella Bing, not independent of the industry that a subject happens to appear in mostly or partially. Sourcing an award to the actual agency that gave out that same award isn't a controversial practice at all. This article needs responsible expansion, not deletion. Guy1890 (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • define well known. I'm British and I never heard of it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well known as, in this case, commented on in at least several well-known, mainstream media sources in the UK...The Guardian, BBC News, The Independent, etc.. Guy1890 (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:IDONTKNOWIT is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Guy, the Guardian article may cover the award ceremony, but it didn't think the actual award winners were worth mentioning, just about how the ceremony fell flat. Coverage treating the awards as unimportant hardly establishes their significance. The BBC article is a brief, snarky piece about a publicity nominating a well-known mainstream actress for a porn award. And the Independent piece is just a passing mention in a piece about that same actress, much shorter than the coverage of the Bad Sex in Fiction Award. Rebecca, WP:IDONTKNOWIT is a bard article to use against notability, but it's hardly unreasonable as a response to a clain that something is "well-known". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The real question here is are the UKAFTAs "well-known" (at least in the UK), which they obviously are based on their mention in the mainstream media there. Heck, I'm an American, and I've heard of them for years now, if you want to play that needless game. The fact that some, including you apparently, don't think that they have the greatest repuation out there is really not relevant IMO. There are some here on Wikipedia that think that the entirety of the adult film-related awards ceremonies are a big pile of crap, but that's not a new or relevant issue either. Guy1890 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone above - passes WP:PORNBIO + WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - win, so meets the requirements. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:06, 14 December 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.