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. Consensus here appears to be that the awards do not satisfy the WP:ANYBIO significance criteria. And the sources offered were either not presented at all or have been argued to be inadequate with little opposition. Thus, delete it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chanel Santini (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)

Fails ENT and GNG. Awards are no longer a substitute for sourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Google News link above turns up several articles, though Santini is not the main subject of them. -sche (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - At least two sources with decent coverage of her.[1][2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lack.of depth to those articles. We don't aggregate lots of weak sources to make up for the lwck.of really strong sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I disagree with your assessment of depth, WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" It's like you don't have any experience writing content on here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as '2018 Xbiz Award for Trans Performer of the Year' satisfies ENT per unique contributions to the field and being exceptionally prolific as well as a trans performer. --Fæ (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it doesn't. It wouldn't even count for PORNBIO..Please provide evidence that this is a significant and well known award. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a total and complete failure of any notability guideline we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per WP:NOTADIRECTORY, because the article subject doesn't meet WP:BASIC. The NYTimes piece is significant coverage of the website, not of Santini. The Houston local news piece – it's terrible what happened to her – but it's not significant coverage of her as an entertainer. It's a story about her being a victim of harassment and discrimination; it only briefly mentions what she does for a living. I'm not seeing anything in the article or finding anything online that approachers significant coverage to meet BASIC. Xbiz is a major adult industry award but so what? Awards don't establish notability for entertainers. – Levivich 04:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep google news search brings up daily dot, papermag, dazed and the NYT article seems to go into sufficient biographic info as well. Rab V (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links please Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The XBIZ awards are in abnormal numbers, even for quite ridiculous categories. However, if someone gets the title of best (male, female, transgender) performer of the year, I would tend to consider him/her noteworthy. Westmanurbe (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under what policy is that argument founded!? PORNBIO has been eliminated and the award does not meet ENT. Do you have anything to passGNG? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've read in ANYBIO that a person could be notabile if he/she has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. In my humble opinion, the XBIZ Award for "Performer of the Year" is a well known and significant award in this field. Westmanurbe (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What RS backup is there suggesting this is a "well-known or significant" award? I can't find any coverage reporting on anyone winning this award, ever. – Levivich 23:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nominators correct analysis - Awards aren't replacements for sources - I'm unable to find anything of notability beyond the usual SELF-PUBLISHED drivel, Fails ENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the lack of sources in the article, in which the information provided is quite small. About the awards, not all of them are the same, and, always in my humble opinon, a person who won the title of "Performer of the Year" at the XBIZ Awards 2018, XBIZ Awards 2019 and AVN Awards 2019, like Santini did, colud be relevant according ANYBIO, having received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several time. Westmanurbe (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has repeatedly been rejected by consensus. Niche or specialized awards like "Girl-Girl Performer of the Year" and "BBW Performer of the Year" or the equivalent have been found to fail the "well-known/significant" standard. In addition, most (at least) XBiz Awards fail the significant prong of the test, since XBiz is a public relations business and has admitted (even touted) the fact that nominations for its awards are controlled by its clients. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2019 (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.