Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Smiles

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. J04n(talk page) 17:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Smiles[edit]

Mia Smiles (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)

She appears to fail WP:PORNBIO as she was never nominated for an individual award. She fails WP:GNG with no reliable sourcing about her (in my searches, just a bunch of false positives). Deprodded with some improvements but, as far as I can see, still no sign of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the film Snoop Dogg's Doggystyle started a (minor) trend in pornography and that it was a groundbreaking work, but I don't see how it is related to her. At best, these merits should be shared between director Michael Martin, producer Larry Flynt and title star Snoop Dogg, and I don't see how she has a significant role in this. Are you arguing that the whole cast of this film passes PORNBIO including virtually unknown actresses like "Bronze", "Baby Doll", "Suave", "Kaire" and "Farrah" on the sole ground of having appeared in this film? Cavarrone (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I didn't come up with the current wording of PORNBIO, which says: "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature". I'm just trying to live by it. As for the "virtually unknown actresses like 'Bronze', 'Baby Doll', 'Suave', 'Kaire' and 'Farrah'", for whatever reason, none of those actors currently have Wikipedia articles, and I personally have no interest in creating articles for any of them. Also, PORNBIO appears to me to specifically apply only to "Pornographic actors and models", not necessarily to directors or producers of adult films. Snoop's already highly notable, even though I can't say that I personally like his music much. Guy1890 (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that she has not made any "unique contribution to a specific pornographic genre". She has not a key role in that film, nor she is the one that began the "hip-pop porn" trend in pornography. PORNBIO#2 refers to people that have a key role in history of pornography, and she hasn't. Cavarrone (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I unfortunately relied on some bad infomation that was apparently posted a few years ago in the Snoop Dogg's Doggystyle article...sorry about that. Mia Smiles was not in that first Snoop Dogg video, she was in the second one (Snoop Dogg's Hustlaz: Diary of a Pimp) which was released the next year. I apologize for the confusion and have made what I think are the necessary edits to all three of the above articles to make them accurate now.
I have a feeling that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one Cavarrone. The fact remains that that Mia Smiles has "starred in an iconic or blockbuster feature" (the 2004 AVN Award top selling video), which IMHO satisfies PORNBIO. Who started the "trend in pornography" where rappers started moving adult films more into the mainstream by hosting X-rated movies is certainly debatable, but it's not relevant to this conversation here anymore. Guy1890 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cavarrone's analysis is sound and accurate, but unnecessary; she's not even in the "groundbreaking" video. The cited source is in essence a VOD advertising site, both unreliable for use in a BLP and generally untrustworthy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't believe she has made unique contributions to pornography. This criteria is meant to be construed strictly with support from reliable sources (not just the usual puffing press releases) that acknowledge the contributions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this actress starred in the "top-selling tape of 2003", as noted by the NY Times ([1]) & the relevant AVN Award ([2]). That's what satisfies PORNBIO. Guy1890 (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be very clear, Smiles is one of thirty-six performers who participate in this video, and is seen in only one of its eight scenes.[3] That falls well short of having "starred in" the video, the PORNBIO requirement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the movie in question is around 100 minutes long, with eight scenes in total. No one, besides apparently Nikki Fairchild & Shyla Stylez, is in more than one scene in that movie. Mia Smiles is one of the stars of the movie, period. Guy1890 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the NY Times article makes no mention of Mia Smile's role in that movie and that is what I need to determine whether she "starred" in it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, you're being stubborn for really no reason. The fact that Ms. Smiles was in the movie in question is not debatable at all. The NY Times article (and when was the last time you saw an adult film series mentioned in the NY Times?) establishes the nature of the movie in question here. Guy1890 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is still unsourced and debatable is if she had a significant role in that film. There is still zero evidence that her role in the film represents an "unique contribution to pornography" as required by the criterium. Not all the 36 performers that have appeared in that film have made unique contributions to pornography, in my view just Snoop Dogg did and the NYT article appears to support my view. An exceptional claim like "she made unique contributions to pornography" needs very strong evidences that I fail to see here. Cavarrone (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PORNBIO is very clear on these issues. The relevant portion of it states: "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent." Mia Smiles was very clearly in "an iconic or blockbuster feature". There are, again according to PORNBIO, several ways to make a "unique contribution to pornography" and being in a feature that sells a lot of copies or crosses over into the mainstream, like the movie in question clearly did, is one of those ways. One can also satisfy PORNBIO by making "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre", "beginning a trend in pornography", "starring in groundbreaking feature" or becoming "a member of an industry Hall of Fame", but these other portions of PORNBIO clearly aren't relevant here. Guy1890 (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely PORNBIO is very clear, and in fact three editors are telling you that your interpretation of PORNBIO is wrong. The requirement of PORNBIO#3 is that an actor has made "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre", it could even happen starring in a feature (eg. Bambi Woods in Debbie Does Dallas or Georgina Spelvin in The Devil in Miss Jones) but it needs to be documented. Here all the available sources give this credit to Snoop Dogg. Your argument that all the 36 performers credited in this film made unique contributions to a pornographic genre and that all them are accordingly notable IMHO goes not only against PORNBIO but also against common sense. Cavarrone (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beating these issues to death really isn't going to change anything, and I can't think of anything more "common sense" than just reading & applying the relevant portions of PORNBIO as they are simply written (as I have already done above & will not repeat again). I personally don't really care what Mr. Wolfowitz says on this or really any other issue related to the Pornography Project, since it's obvious to me what his intentions for the project have been for quite a while...to whittle it away over time. Also, he's the one that originally PRODed this article back on May 17th, as a part of his routine, weekly, handful or more of PRODs and/or AfDs related to pretty much exclusively the Pornography Project alone. Obviously, you're the one that originally submitted this AfD Cavarrone, so it's no surprise to me that you continue to subbornly oppose me here. We obviously have a different reading of the PORNBIO standard...so be it. As for whether "all the 36 performers credited in this film" pass PORNBIO, that doesn't bother me one bit in the least, since I'm not here to generate an endless listing of new adult actors & actresses to Wikipedia, and I generally don't have deletionist tendencies in this or any other project that I'm currently involved in on Wikipedia. Again, I had absolutely zero input into the current wording of PORNBIO, I'm just trying to live up to it here on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject is considered notable as an AVN Award recipient per WP:PORNBIO; as a notability guideline it was created with consensus of those editors involved in its creation discussion at that time. If we don't like PORNBIO, start an RfC and get it changed. Until then I have to look at the essays, guidelines, and policies that we're suppose to be there that define notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There was an RFC and extended discussion running for more than six months from late 2011 well into 2012, and it eliminated the language in PORNBIO that said all AVN award recipients were notable. The guideline now says that scene awards don't count toward notability. The consensus on that point was particularly strong. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject does not meet WP:PORNBIO; no AVN nominations have been for individual categories, and criteria 2 or 3 are not met either. Miniapolis 15:07, 7 June 2013 (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_Smiles&oldid=1080473658"