Deletion of Alexis Texas (2nd nomination)

Comment: per . Sourcing is porn industry publications, and the awards are not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: Considering the academic sources to "most popular" are continuously ignored, let me do a post on the record dissecting , going indepth and how "industry publications" is only used to dismiss porn and no other field (because they still have their SNGs). It's worth noting that pornography is directly responsible for Wikipedia and it's original funding Bomis https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/File:Silvia_Saint_001.jpghttps://www.sunray22b.net/images/jimmy_wales.jpg. Which is odd because its the one field held to above standards and that the porn stars whose images are responsible for wiki would probably not qualify on here, which is ironic
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT)

Comment: Meets  criterion 2. This is shown by the evidence presented by Morbidthoughts and GuzzyG. More generally, it seems there is a systemic bias against porn actors (also visible in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armond Rizzo|this recent AfD). We keep deeming subjects notable because of SNG that would otherwise struggle to have even a claim of significance. I'm thinking here, for example, of football players who have come on as a sub in a single pro match with no evidence other than the match statistics (). I know this line of argument tends towards  but for the sake of improving the project I think the article should be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT||WP:NFOOTBALL||WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: per |HEY (directed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: Just because PORNBIO was deprecated doesn't mean that Texas doesn't fall under . Sure, I get that most porn awards are practically meaningless because there's so many much like the endless amount of "Game of the Year" awards given by niche entities and winning multiple times for Most Epic Ass doesn't make Texas notable. But she's been nominated four times for the AVN "Female Performer of the Year" and she's been covered in numerous other sources that have been recently added to the article. Plus I object to this idea that pornographic industry publications are "not enough" to establish notability. This has no basis in policy or fact beyond some sort of  argument that pornographic trade publications differ from music industry, game industry, movie industry, or practically any other industry publication in some way. Pornographic performers are like other performers and we should treat them the same way; not better (like PORNBIO entails) or worse (like this discussion is suggesting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: At the least,  #2 & #3 apply. Without time to dig super deep on sources ("Texas" makes the task more difficult), her inclusion in ''Confessions of the Hundred Hottest Porn Stars:'' ... ''Tell-Alls from the '''Biggest Names in the Biz''''' serves as an accurate characterization. She has been one of the most well-known figures in the field for about a decade. —&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT)

Comment: Fails . Mostly sourced to...industry publications
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT)

Comment: Easily passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)