Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avy Scott

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. Easily meets guideline of WP:PORNBIO for notability. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avy Scott

Avy Scott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I'm unconvinced that simply doing your job earns you a place in wikipedia, even when that job is in the nature of "Butt Lick'in Sweethearts 1 Platinum X Pictures Facial Swallow IR." This person has Zero Gnews hits and of the 747 unique hits I was unable to locate anything from a reliable source. As much as I liked her wearing a toolbelt and it's ilk, her 600K+ Alexa rank makes me think that she fails the spirit of the inclusion guideline for humans. Delete unless reliable sources provided demonstrating that she is in some way distinguished from the other hard-working souls like her. brenneman 05:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not 100% sure what to make of this but it looks pretty damning. - brenneman 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

While I find very few references to her on UseNet, a search of AdultDVDTalk.com reveals 205 movies. SubWolf 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you should have searched for this or this, corresponding to an Alexa ranking of >600,000 or <2,500. -- Black Falcon 19:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable per nom, but it's good to know that people are still doing their jobs, thereby fueling the economy of this great nation, increasing the standard of living for all, and providing essential services to the people. Or something like that. --N Shar 06:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 100 movies, really? -- Kendrick7^talk 07:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no source so the 100 movies figure is rubbery and there is no other assertion of notability. I wondered where my toolbelt went - Peripitus (Talk) 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 13:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete myspacecruft. Storm05 15:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please explain that remark. --JJay 22:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Has starred in 116 movies and directed 4 movies ([1]). -- Black Falcon 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a poor nomination and the nom's patronizing attitude regarding Ms. Scott is insulting. The nom neglected to link to our WP:PORNBIO guidelines, which Ms. Scott seems to pass with over 100 film appearances and four directorial efforts. Furthermore, according to our AVN award list, Ms. Scott won was nominated for two AVN awards in 2004- see AVN Awards 2004. Lastly, the nom's assertion that MS. Scott gets "zero GNews hits" is false. She actually gets 22 News hits [2]. --JJay 18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually she was nominated for two awards in 2004, not winning two awards. Tabercil 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The "number of films" criteria is under "dubious methods of establishing notability"... It's a double-edged sword in this case. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps. Although the exact wording: modern American heterosexual performers are not usually notable if they appear in fewer than 100 films...implies that 100 films is a benchmark. Coupled with four director credits, I believe Ms. Scott qualifies for inclusion. --JJay 22:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  Gosh, where to begin...

  1. What's wrong with my tone? "She does her job" is only insulting if you think there is something wrong with her job. I don't, but it is just her job.
  2. If we're going to fling guidelines around, don't pick and choose... she fails Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors).
  3. I'm not 100% clear on what jiggery-pokey resulted in more news hits than I (still) get, but I'm not seeing anything in the article to show she has multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources.

  brenneman 06:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• 1) Afd is not a forum for you to make coy remarks about article subjects. Don't do it again in the future.
• 2)Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) is the applicable guideline for porn actors. You should refer to it if you are going to nominate porn articles for deletion. By my reading (and that of others), she passes.
• 3) Your nominations continually misrepresent the number of google news hits. If you don't know how to search using google and/or google news then you should not cite those tools in your nomination. The article is fully sourced. Add more sources from the google news hits if you are not satisfied. --JJay 15:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sources present in the article and over 100 films. And I have to agree with JJay regarding the tone taken by brennerman in presenting the nomination. Tabercil 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite the poor tact of the nominator (what happened to WP:AGF, anyway?), the article does not meet any of the valid criteria laid out in WP:PORNBIO. The only criteria this presently meets is dubious at best, which is hardly enough to keep the article. Sorry. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - over 100 films and nominated for two AVN awards. --Oakshade 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Which is part of the guideline that is not widely accepted and/or nominated doesn't mean "won. "- brenneman 06:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Part of a guideline nonetheless, even if someone doesn't like it. And nominated for 2 AVN awards in an extremely crowded profession demonstrates distinction and notability. --Oakshade 07:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. In addition to being nominated for 2 AVN awards, she also won (see the first source) a Rog Reviews Critic's Choice award. In addition to starring in >100 films, she is a director. Finally, she has been the subject of at least two interviews (which I think is enough to establish multiple non-trivial coverage). Please keep in mind that the central criterion for WP:PORNBIO is that "An erotic actor or actress may be demonstrated as notable" if he or she has been "the subject has been covered by multiple sources which are independent of the article subject and are reliable." The two interviews alone suffice. -- Black Falcon 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Nominated for two AVN awards isn't really enough. Not bad, but not enough. However, Rog Review's Critic's Choice award isn't, from my point of view, equal to an AVN award. It's merely some website award, despite Rog's significance in the field. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean to suggest that the award nominations alone are enough. I think she passes WP:PORNBIO by her film history, directing credits, and multiple coverage (interviews). The award nominations are just extra. -- Black Falcon 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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.