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. No substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO Tabercil (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Has some coverage in AVN and XBIZ, but not quite enough to meet WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'll agree with Epbr123. The AVN and XBIZ stories are not intellectually independent of each other so I count that as one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silverseren^C 00:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silverseren^C 00:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe that she qualifies for PORNBIO #3, in terms of "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature", considering that Not the Cosbys XXX is described in a number of the references as being the most successful interracial porn movie ever. Silverseren^C 00:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which reference did you see it in? The closest reference from the article I found was "And the 1980s are exactly what director Will Ryder had in mind when he created what many are predicting will become the most successful interracial sex movie ever." This reference is also a press release on a site (thepornoreporter) that may be unreliable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does ThePornoReporter say that it's a press release? I can't find that anywhere. Silverseren^C 01:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise it as a press release because I regularly receive the producer's press releases through email. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...okay. Can you prove that? Silverseren^C 04:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of proving "predicting will become the most successful interracial sex movie ever" is a press release when it doesn't even verify that it is the most successful interracial movie ever? Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word for word copy here; designated as a press release. [1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked at the dates, you would notice that The Porno Reporter posted their article the day before that. Can you actually trust the word of a blog over it? Silverseren^C 15:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahuh. Thepornoreporter is also a blog so I am not sure what your point is? If I go through my deleted folder in my email box and find that press release, you probably would still ask for more proof. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does The Porno Reporter say that it's a blog? From what I can tell, it doesn't say that anywhere. If you are going to make a statement that a source is false, you need to prove it. Silverseren^C 16:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to show that the film is the "most successful interracial sex movie ever". You haven't done it by giving me a press release that states a prediction. I haven't said anything about whether the source is false, just that it is a press release. Thepornoreporter is a self-published blog. You may have to assume good faith as an editor that I know all of this because I am a member of the adult industry press. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found some rather lengthy reviews of the film in question in X Critic, Adult DVD Talk, RogReviews, AVN that do not appear to be simple press releases. And I even found reviews of the sequel in which she also starred... Not The Cosbys XXX 2 Adult DVD Talk and X Critic. Certainly, these are not the New York Times nor Washington Post, but they do discuss the film(s) at length and dwell on the inter-racial aspects. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X-Critic and ADT reviews are consumer based - similar to a review on Amazon. Rogreviews is self-published, although Rog is considered an expert reviewer. AVN reviews are trivial in depth. None of the reviews can establish whether the movie is groundbreaking, iconic, or blockbuster status. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Morbidthoughts: Thank you. But as one could hardly expect to find mainstream national reviewers reviewing porn film, where then would one look to find sources considered suitable enough for porn films? And toward the X-Critic review... it does seem that X-Critic has an editorial staff,[2] and the review's author, staffmember Don Houston appears to have at least 4,595 reviews to his credit.[3] So in considering the editorial staff, and the author's apparent expertise, perhaps his review is worth considering? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That staff listing is an aggregate listing of people who has submitted reviews and blogs for the website and the credibility and expertise of many of these people are unknown. Sure Don Houston may be an expert reviewer, but how does a review that is published within a week of a movie's release (many times even before the release) establish that is a movie blockbuster and iconic. Maybe it can determine whether something is groundbreaking but I am very wary of the usual hyperbole throw around by the adult industry. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... and after the recent and stressful RFA, I am loathe to offer anything that does not seem at least worth considering. So where and how might we determine just how credible their editoral processes might be? Or determine the credentials or expertise of Don Houston as a reviewer? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. Hipocrite (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why the coverage is not substantial enough? Silverseren^C 15:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there isn't any? The only coverage currently listed are all press releases. Hipocrite (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Schmidt's comment above. Silverseren^C 23:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding to the sources above about the inter-racial "Not The Cosbys XXX" and "Not The Cosbys XXX 2"... it seems that not "all" her coverage is press releases. While some certainly are releases, we can ignore those and concentrate on the coverage that appears to appoach WP:GNG... in industry sources Adult Video News (1), Xbiz News (1), Xbiz News (2), Adult Video News (2), Black Adult Magazine (apparently itself souced back to AVN 1 above) and yes, even the disputed The Porno Reporter... which appears to be an edited news digest and not a blog... and mainstream sources La Talk Radio (1), La Talk Radio (2). If the GNG is met, is there a guideline mandate that PORNBIO must be met as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. The standard ARS tactic of refbombing with rote google searches is depreciated. There's no coverage of the actor in any of your googlespam. Hipocrite (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hipocrite: Actually, there are parts of notability guideline that specifically allow that notability can be inherited... through one's work, one's team, one's awards, one's discoveries, etc. WP:NOTINHERITED clarifies just how this works and shares exceptions and applications. I have patiently asked questions in trying to determine if I should support deletion or not. You attacks against a group of 347 contributors and assumptions of bad faith encourage a battlefield mentality, and as such are disruptive to civil dicussion. Please stop. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? All of those links are about her. Silverseren^C 04:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. this is not, this is not, and all the other "articles" are transparently the same press release reprinted over and over. Hipocrite (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In comparing various reviews, it can be seen that like reviews about any film, they discuss the topic, consider the same information, make note of the same plots, but are not all "transparently the same press release reprinted over and over". Your misleading editors is not conducive to civil discussion. For example, "This" news story you call a press release specifically asserts "XBIZ News Report by Todd Hunter". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I was pretty clear in saying that was "not about her," not that that was a press release. Try to keep up. Hipocrite (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hipocrite: I've caught up. It was User:Silver seren who said they were about her, not me... at no time did I say or imply that they were. I was responding imediately above to your statement to User:Silver seren "transparently the same press release reprinted over and over", in error thinking you were yourself responding to my ongoing discussion with User:Morbidthoughts about some films she was in as first brought up by User:Silver seren. If the films themselves could be considered "iconic" or "groundbreaking" enough, they might then have allowed her to pass PORNBIO#3. No more. No less. Too many tracks through this station. Wrong que. Sorry for any confusions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hipocrite sums it up pretty well. AniMate 06:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per hippocrite. It's also worth reminding people that the BIO guideline has this to say about the "additional guidelines:" Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. That is to say pass or failure of pornbio (this person in my opinion clearly does not but i don't care to argue about it) is no guarantee that something should be included (or conversely, excluded). What should guide us is the existence/absence of independent, high quality in-depth sources such that the construction of a neutral, verifiable, and proper encyclopedia biography could be written on a living person. Such sources do not exist in this case.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Fails WP:PORNSTAR. --Morenooso (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with appreciations to per User:Bali ultimate for his elucidation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Had a leading role in two major productions from Hustler, the Cosby parodies. Dream Focus 06:03, 20 April 2010 (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.