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. Tone 22:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Rocco Siffredi[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by Rocco Siffredi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Indiscriminate list(s) based mainly on non-independent, promotional industry sources; no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources found. What little coverage that exists in independent sources can be summarized at the main biographical article(s). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Angela White and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Sasha Grey. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages in Category:Lists of awards by pornographic film actor for identical reasons:

• Awards and nominations received by Natalie Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of awards and nominations received by Asa Akira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of awards and nominations received by Lisa Ann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Duplication. There is an awards section the main article no need for separate article. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. –Cupper52^Discuss! 10:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: a WP:NOT lists of low-impact industry awards; all fail WP:NLIST. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, these have been bloatfests within articles, trying to spin them out is even worse. Since just being nominated is no longer an inclusion criteria, IMO, trim every list to awards won only. Zaathras (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all - The issue here is what is considered to be "reliable" In the adult industry there is a different set of media which are reliable. These are AVN, XBIZ and XRCO. These are reliable publications. By the standards being set here, no adult performer is able to meet the criteria to have a page their awards. the bar is being set as if they are a mainstream actor. The problem here is this feels very much like trying to remove these because they are not understood. The bar being set here would mean that all of the pages listing the awards for 90-95% of individuals who are notable to have a page on Wikipedia and have connected award pages, would have the award page deleted. The things with these pages are that they are effectively connected pages to the main page and are only split off when the information becomes too much for the page in and of itself. If the information were included in the main article of the individual there would be not questions on notability as the content of pages is not up for notability discussion it is the subject of the article. The subject of these pages derives the notability. These pages notability and inclusion on Wikipedia are derived from the individual who has been nominated and won these awards, and that is where they derive notability from. If it was an awards page for an individual who was also not notable then fine delete the awards page, these pages are though connected, and only split off when it becomes too big for the main page. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is not inherited from the main subject. In the case of lists, notability requires that listed items have been discussed as a group or set by independent sources. Otherwise literally any notable subject could have an endless amount of ancillary list articles of indiscriminate trivia. We don't have different standards of reliable sourcing for the adult industry. Industry sources are largely promotional, and especially so regarding the awards they themselves give out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  By the standards being set here, no adult performer is able to meet the criteria to have a page their awards.. Yes, and as far as I am concerned, that is a desirable outcome WP:PORNBIO was deprecated, simply being nominated for one of these awards is no longer an acceptable notability criteria. Pornographic performers have to meet the general notability guideline to retain an article on the Wikipedia, the days of relying on closed, biased, industry "awards" are long-gone. If the awards list is getting too long for the main bio, then that is a sign of list bloat, not that it should be spun out. Zaathras (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a split issue. The information will simply end up back on the main articles of the individuals. Targetting for deletion these pages is the wrong way to handle a split issue and a wider issue regarding separate pages for individuals awards. There are hundreds of individuals on here who have unwieldy awards pages. These include every award under the sun. Going after pornographic actors and only them misses the wider issue here. This is a split issue and not a deletion issue. Also, notability as it currently stands derives from the sources, which are being dismissed simply because they are from the porn industry. By that reasoning, any trade could have all of its sources thrown out on those grounds. Simply saying it is not, does not make it so. This is also not indiscriminate trivia. This is sourced information and meets the standards on other pages regarding individuals awards and nominations. If the article is of poor quality improve the article. Laziness reaches for deletion. The argument being put forth here is basically pornography is not notable, which is just flat wrong and is a very poor argument, and effectively falls into the realms of I don't like porn, particularly when a general clean up of too many categories is used to go look we don't like them as was done by throwing around PORNBIO like it is a silver bullet. I would also hope the deletion nominator actually wanted the pages deleted or it would be a bad faith nomination. Simply put targeting these pages for deletion misses the real issues that this is a split issue and a wider problem with awards pages. The wider issue on what is and is not considered to be notable for awards lists. Deleting only porn articles smacks of missing the point. Sparkle1 (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There are hundreds of individuals on here who have unwieldy awards pages – Yes, other stuff exists. Feel free to take your concerns to those pages.

  [N]otability as it currently stands derives from the sources, which are being dismissed simply because they are from the porn industry – sources for AVN awards are mostly from AVN, sources for XBIZ awards are mostly from XBIZ, and so on. Therefore they are not independent of the topic which they are reporting on.

  The argument being put forth here is basically pornography is not notable – that is not the argument at all. The argument is that pornographic performers should be evaluated by the same standards of notability as other topics. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The above makes no refutation other to go I didn't hear what was being said. So I shall repeat my own points. I think both of us now need to cease going round in circles as we are diametrically opposing each other and have clearly different interpretations here. We are both acting in good faith and going round and round is not helpful. Said my piece, and moving on these awards for these notable individuals are notable and that's the end of it. This is a WP:split problem, and the articles need to be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkle1 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's what WP:SPLIT says (my bolding): "If ... a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it may be appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles ... but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia." Where's the evidence that the awards received by the performer(s) are notable independent of the main subject? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2021 (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.