- 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 List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. Editors who argued in favour of keeping this article largely cited WP:PORNBIO as the subject is a member of the AVN Hall of Fame. While true, this is a guideline on notability, and does not replace the core requirement for articles to have been the subject of secondary sources of reliable information, as argued by delete/redirect voters. No such reliable secondary sources were presented and no convincing arguments were made that a lack of independent sources was acceptable. I thus find that there is a stronger argument against keeping the article, with a redirect being the most sensible option. Sam Walton ( talk) 09:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Sascha (actor)
- Sascha (actor) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:DIRECTORY listing of a BLP on an unremarkable actor, with no meaningful bio data present. Significant RS coverage cannot be found to meet GNG. The award category "Unsung Swordsman" is not significant and well known thus not meeting WP:PORNBIO.
Edit: the AVN Hall of Fame reference was added after the article was proposed for deletion ( diff). I still don't see sources required for stand-alone notability. The article can be redirected to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. Please see WP:WHYN.
Edit #2: The article now contains an additional paragraph, but the sources are either primary (IAFD) or run-of-the-mill, such as Class of 2016: The AVN Hall of Fame Inductees from AVN, etc. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Does his award meet WP:PORNBIO? Sigh. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- the "unsung" portion of it suggests that it does not. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect per below - Having relooked at the discussion redirect is more beneficial to the reader than simply wiping them off of the entire project, IMHO you shouldn't just get an article just because you've been in some hall of fame (just like I don't believe singers should get their own article just becuase they've had 1 charted single ... I'm going off topic here, Point is all articles should meet GNG which this doesn't however redirecting is better than deleting.) – Davey2010 Talk 03:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Strong, Speedy Keep passes WP:PORNBIO with flying colors with both a well-known/significant non-scene/ensemble award win and an AVN Hall of Fame induction. Rebecca1990 ( talk) 06:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep A proposal to delete a performer who's been inducted into AVN's Hall of fame? - That is not merely unconscionable, but rather criminal insanity! Glenn Francis ( talk) 06:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- the AVN Hall of Fame reference was added after the article was proposed for deletion ( diff). I still don't see sources required for stand-alone notability; the entire article consists of "Sascha (born 24 October 1976 in Leonberg, Germany) is a German pornographic film actor and director"; list of awards; and infobox.
- The article can be redirected to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. Please see WP:WHYN; the article provides no meaningful bio data, and redirection to a list would be appropriate. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep You did see the Hall of Fame? (and just didn't even mention it) While a Hall of Famer is a great sign for a probable article improvement, being a stub is no general reason for deletion. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 07:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Not only unique contribution for his Hall of Fame but also for starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature, Who's Nailin' Paylin, an iconic feature, which has made Lisa Ann extremely famous. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 07:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Merely appearing in such a release doesn't satisfy PORNBIO. Lisa Ann is the only star of that video; just look at the boxcover. A settled issue; this claim doesn't make the cut. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ( talk) 10:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Of course, the box cover says it all... Who cares about the persons who e. g. pictured Hillary Clinton, Condolleeza Rice or Bill O'Reilly. --
SamWinchester000 (
talk) 13:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I've noticed now that the box cover even has the names of the male performers written on it, something, which is very unusual for porn covers and probably only done because the movie has been so popular. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 01:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. Another BLP without biographical content or independent reliable sourcing, for a performer known only by a generic mononym. That's how this would be handled in any other field, if such an article would be kept at all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ( talk) 10:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, no this is actually absolutely not how a stub of e. g. Football tournament participants would be handled. I would rather guess that at least 80 % of 1908 olympic participants (in all sports) are stubs. Oh, and did you notice that there are also other known entertainers in this world that have a mononym? Like Cro (singer) who actually nobody in the world knows about who he is without a mask. Oh, and funnily it just came to my mind that there is a German singer called de:Sasha (Sänger) as well. However, it must be impossible to be known in the world if one doesn't have a last name. Great argument. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 13:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO per criteria (2) for being member of AVN Hall of Fame. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 13:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per DEL8 for lack of notability. The subject seems to meet PORNBIO points 1 and 2(c), but it doesn't appear there is any nontrivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. The SNGs and sub-guidelines, including PORNBIO, are for determining notability in debatable cases where there is meaningful coverage that may or may not meet GNG; they should not be used to find notability where it is plainly lacking. Cf. WP:BIO § Additional criteria ("[M]eeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included."); WP:Notability § Why we have these requirements. Rebb ing 04:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Our core content policy Verifiability require that we base articles on reliable, third party sources. This article lacks any reliable third party sources. Interpretation of PORNBIO (a guideline which is a failure as a useful tool) cannot override the failure of this article to comply with a core content policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment with a quote from the recent close of the AfD for the Kristina Rose article, deleted on 27 August:
- "Finally and perhaps most importantly, arguably meeting the PORNBIO criteria is not by default a "is notable"/keep reason, as said on WP:BIO, something also emphasized by a number of delete !voters who also noted relevant statements such as WP:NRVE and WP:WHYN, statements that have not been disagreed with, which is especially concerning on a WP:BLP about a sensitive subject matter."
- More details at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Rose for the additional closing arguments.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 07:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- That AfD decesion has already been a big joke, when I've read it the last time. The whole explanation says in short: Discussion is irrelevant, I [the Admin] will uncompromisingly decide it anyway (and for whatever reason only name delete comments in my whole explanation). I would already have brought that to WP:Deletion review if I would speak English more fluently and have more time. Also, may I remember you about WP:OTHERCRAP? -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 13:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment I can't remember since when stub articles (which are also absolutely common in sports) are forbiden. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 13:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Reply Stub articles are not forbidden, but like every article, they must comply with our core content policies. This article doesn't.
Cullen328
Let's discuss it 20:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- How can a stub in any way comply with content policies about sourcing when the definition of a stub is that it literally consists of nothing more than 1 or 2 basic sentences? --
SamWinchester000 (
talk) 03:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ SamWinchester000: Acceptable stubs that will not be deleted will have at least two references to reliable, third party sources. Many stubs have much more than two sentences. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- How can a stub in any way comply with content policies about sourcing when the definition of a stub is that it literally consists of nothing more than 1 or 2 basic sentences? --
SamWinchester000 (
talk) 03:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep NOTE: I've recently made some preliminary edits to the article in question here for the time being, and I'm sure that the article can be expanded further in the future. The subject here (who's full stage name is apparently "Sascha Koch" - maybe this article should be moved there?) "has won a well-known and significant industry award" (namely the XRCO Award, which is one of the longest-running & most well-known adult film industry awards, "Unsung Swordsman" award, which is a significant award category) and has also been recently inducted into "an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame".
- I would note that the recent proposed change to PORNBIO (which apparently does not seem to have consensus yet?) did not remove the "is a member of the AVN or XRCO hall of fame" wording from PORNBIO. Also, the recent "Kristina Rose" AfD is irrelevant to consideration of this article here, since Ms. Rose has not been inducted into "an industry hall of fame" at all. Guy1890 ( talk) 01:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per guy1890. Pwolit iets ( talk) 18:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - FWIW, IAFD isn't a "primary" source - it's a site that usually gets its information from the adult film industry producers that have to verify that their performers are of age and/or legal to shoot adult films in the USA. It's actually been a rarity that I've personally seen IAFD-related info be proven wrong by other sources. Guy1890 ( talk) 00:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- @ Guy1890: isn't IAFD substantially similar to IMDB, which is not considered RS for establishing notability? The linked article states:
- "It is similar to the Internet Movie Database, in that it is open to the public and is searchable. (...) Like the IMDb, forms are used for submitting data corrections, though the IAFD's form is considerably simpler than the IMDb's. ...
- A clarification would be appreciated.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 04:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- IMDb isn't considered reliable for its biographies, only for its filmographies (the IMDb awards sections are often very comprehensive though - I personally wouldn't use them as a first choice to cite award info though). IAFD is widely considered reliable for its basic biographical information in the adult film industry, which would hardly ever qualify anyone as notable on Wikipedia in any event. IAFD is certainly not a "primary source" by any stretch of the imagination.
Guy1890 (
talk) 05:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Guy1890: it appears that we agree that IAFD does not represent WP:SIGCOV for the purpose of establishing notability or meeting GNG. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- IMDb isn't considered reliable for its biographies, only for its filmographies (the IMDb awards sections are often very comprehensive though - I personally wouldn't use them as a first choice to cite award info though). IAFD is widely considered reliable for its basic biographical information in the adult film industry, which would hardly ever qualify anyone as notable on Wikipedia in any event. IAFD is certainly not a "primary source" by any stretch of the imagination.
Guy1890 (
talk) 05:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:52, 26 September 2016 (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.
- 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 List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. Editors who argued in favour of keeping this article largely cited WP:PORNBIO as the subject is a member of the AVN Hall of Fame. While true, this is a guideline on notability, and does not replace the core requirement for articles to have been the subject of secondary sources of reliable information, as argued by delete/redirect voters. No such reliable secondary sources were presented and no convincing arguments were made that a lack of independent sources was acceptable. I thus find that there is a stronger argument against keeping the article, with a redirect being the most sensible option. Sam Walton ( talk) 09:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Sascha (actor)
- Sascha (actor) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:DIRECTORY listing of a BLP on an unremarkable actor, with no meaningful bio data present. Significant RS coverage cannot be found to meet GNG. The award category "Unsung Swordsman" is not significant and well known thus not meeting WP:PORNBIO.
Edit: the AVN Hall of Fame reference was added after the article was proposed for deletion ( diff). I still don't see sources required for stand-alone notability. The article can be redirected to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. Please see WP:WHYN.
Edit #2: The article now contains an additional paragraph, but the sources are either primary (IAFD) or run-of-the-mill, such as Class of 2016: The AVN Hall of Fame Inductees from AVN, etc. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Does his award meet WP:PORNBIO? Sigh. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- the "unsung" portion of it suggests that it does not. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect per below - Having relooked at the discussion redirect is more beneficial to the reader than simply wiping them off of the entire project, IMHO you shouldn't just get an article just because you've been in some hall of fame (just like I don't believe singers should get their own article just becuase they've had 1 charted single ... I'm going off topic here, Point is all articles should meet GNG which this doesn't however redirecting is better than deleting.) – Davey2010 Talk 03:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Strong, Speedy Keep passes WP:PORNBIO with flying colors with both a well-known/significant non-scene/ensemble award win and an AVN Hall of Fame induction. Rebecca1990 ( talk) 06:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep A proposal to delete a performer who's been inducted into AVN's Hall of fame? - That is not merely unconscionable, but rather criminal insanity! Glenn Francis ( talk) 06:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- the AVN Hall of Fame reference was added after the article was proposed for deletion ( diff). I still don't see sources required for stand-alone notability; the entire article consists of "Sascha (born 24 October 1976 in Leonberg, Germany) is a German pornographic film actor and director"; list of awards; and infobox.
- The article can be redirected to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. Please see WP:WHYN; the article provides no meaningful bio data, and redirection to a list would be appropriate. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep You did see the Hall of Fame? (and just didn't even mention it) While a Hall of Famer is a great sign for a probable article improvement, being a stub is no general reason for deletion. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 07:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Not only unique contribution for his Hall of Fame but also for starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature, Who's Nailin' Paylin, an iconic feature, which has made Lisa Ann extremely famous. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 07:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Merely appearing in such a release doesn't satisfy PORNBIO. Lisa Ann is the only star of that video; just look at the boxcover. A settled issue; this claim doesn't make the cut. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ( talk) 10:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Of course, the box cover says it all... Who cares about the persons who e. g. pictured Hillary Clinton, Condolleeza Rice or Bill O'Reilly. --
SamWinchester000 (
talk) 13:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I've noticed now that the box cover even has the names of the male performers written on it, something, which is very unusual for porn covers and probably only done because the movie has been so popular. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 01:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. Another BLP without biographical content or independent reliable sourcing, for a performer known only by a generic mononym. That's how this would be handled in any other field, if such an article would be kept at all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ( talk) 10:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, no this is actually absolutely not how a stub of e. g. Football tournament participants would be handled. I would rather guess that at least 80 % of 1908 olympic participants (in all sports) are stubs. Oh, and did you notice that there are also other known entertainers in this world that have a mononym? Like Cro (singer) who actually nobody in the world knows about who he is without a mask. Oh, and funnily it just came to my mind that there is a German singer called de:Sasha (Sänger) as well. However, it must be impossible to be known in the world if one doesn't have a last name. Great argument. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 13:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO per criteria (2) for being member of AVN Hall of Fame. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 13:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per DEL8 for lack of notability. The subject seems to meet PORNBIO points 1 and 2(c), but it doesn't appear there is any nontrivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. The SNGs and sub-guidelines, including PORNBIO, are for determining notability in debatable cases where there is meaningful coverage that may or may not meet GNG; they should not be used to find notability where it is plainly lacking. Cf. WP:BIO § Additional criteria ("[M]eeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included."); WP:Notability § Why we have these requirements. Rebb ing 04:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Our core content policy Verifiability require that we base articles on reliable, third party sources. This article lacks any reliable third party sources. Interpretation of PORNBIO (a guideline which is a failure as a useful tool) cannot override the failure of this article to comply with a core content policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment with a quote from the recent close of the AfD for the Kristina Rose article, deleted on 27 August:
- "Finally and perhaps most importantly, arguably meeting the PORNBIO criteria is not by default a "is notable"/keep reason, as said on WP:BIO, something also emphasized by a number of delete !voters who also noted relevant statements such as WP:NRVE and WP:WHYN, statements that have not been disagreed with, which is especially concerning on a WP:BLP about a sensitive subject matter."
- More details at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Rose for the additional closing arguments.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 07:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- That AfD decesion has already been a big joke, when I've read it the last time. The whole explanation says in short: Discussion is irrelevant, I [the Admin] will uncompromisingly decide it anyway (and for whatever reason only name delete comments in my whole explanation). I would already have brought that to WP:Deletion review if I would speak English more fluently and have more time. Also, may I remember you about WP:OTHERCRAP? -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 13:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment I can't remember since when stub articles (which are also absolutely common in sports) are forbiden. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 13:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Reply Stub articles are not forbidden, but like every article, they must comply with our core content policies. This article doesn't.
Cullen328
Let's discuss it 20:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- How can a stub in any way comply with content policies about sourcing when the definition of a stub is that it literally consists of nothing more than 1 or 2 basic sentences? --
SamWinchester000 (
talk) 03:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ SamWinchester000: Acceptable stubs that will not be deleted will have at least two references to reliable, third party sources. Many stubs have much more than two sentences. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- How can a stub in any way comply with content policies about sourcing when the definition of a stub is that it literally consists of nothing more than 1 or 2 basic sentences? --
SamWinchester000 (
talk) 03:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep NOTE: I've recently made some preliminary edits to the article in question here for the time being, and I'm sure that the article can be expanded further in the future. The subject here (who's full stage name is apparently "Sascha Koch" - maybe this article should be moved there?) "has won a well-known and significant industry award" (namely the XRCO Award, which is one of the longest-running & most well-known adult film industry awards, "Unsung Swordsman" award, which is a significant award category) and has also been recently inducted into "an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame".
- I would note that the recent proposed change to PORNBIO (which apparently does not seem to have consensus yet?) did not remove the "is a member of the AVN or XRCO hall of fame" wording from PORNBIO. Also, the recent "Kristina Rose" AfD is irrelevant to consideration of this article here, since Ms. Rose has not been inducted into "an industry hall of fame" at all. Guy1890 ( talk) 01:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per guy1890. Pwolit iets ( talk) 18:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - FWIW, IAFD isn't a "primary" source - it's a site that usually gets its information from the adult film industry producers that have to verify that their performers are of age and/or legal to shoot adult films in the USA. It's actually been a rarity that I've personally seen IAFD-related info be proven wrong by other sources. Guy1890 ( talk) 00:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- @ Guy1890: isn't IAFD substantially similar to IMDB, which is not considered RS for establishing notability? The linked article states:
- "It is similar to the Internet Movie Database, in that it is open to the public and is searchable. (...) Like the IMDb, forms are used for submitting data corrections, though the IAFD's form is considerably simpler than the IMDb's. ...
- A clarification would be appreciated.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 04:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- IMDb isn't considered reliable for its biographies, only for its filmographies (the IMDb awards sections are often very comprehensive though - I personally wouldn't use them as a first choice to cite award info though). IAFD is widely considered reliable for its basic biographical information in the adult film industry, which would hardly ever qualify anyone as notable on Wikipedia in any event. IAFD is certainly not a "primary source" by any stretch of the imagination.
Guy1890 (
talk) 05:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Guy1890: it appears that we agree that IAFD does not represent WP:SIGCOV for the purpose of establishing notability or meeting GNG. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- IMDb isn't considered reliable for its biographies, only for its filmographies (the IMDb awards sections are often very comprehensive though - I personally wouldn't use them as a first choice to cite award info though). IAFD is widely considered reliable for its basic biographical information in the adult film industry, which would hardly ever qualify anyone as notable on Wikipedia in any event. IAFD is certainly not a "primary source" by any stretch of the imagination.
Guy1890 (
talk) 05:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:52, 26 September 2016 (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.