Deletion of Deauxma (2nd nomination)

Comment: per what was said in the DRV. Industry-internal awards – and much more so mere nominations for them – are "significant" only if and insofar their significance is reflected in coverage by other, reliable, independent (i.e. non-industry-internal) sources. Show me the coverage of the "MILF/Cougar..." nomination process in independent media; then and only then can we talk about notability. (''Ceterum censeo''  has lacked consensus for years and has for that reason long ceased to be a valid guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: We are beginning to get sidetracked from this discussion just like in the DRV. Remember, we are here to discuss if Deauxma passes , not . Pornographic actors aren't required to pass GNG in order to have a WP article. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loona Luxx|Loona Luxx, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Adriano|Mike Adriano, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celeste Star (2nd nomination)|Celeste Star, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capri Anderson (3rd nomination)|Capri Anderson all survived in recent AfD's. They all pass PORNBIO solely based on their awards and nominations and if Deauxma doesn't meet GNG, then neither do they since they all have less news coverage than her. Why is Deauxma's article so controversial and why should she be any different from these four porn actors? Is it simply because her article got salted? If that's the reason why then let me remind you again that it's been 6-7 years since then and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deauxma|this AfD no longer applies today. Now back to the topic of this discussion, does Deauxma pass PORNBIO? Why or why not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO||WP:GNG)

Comment: Deauxma passes  because she has been nominated for three "well-known and significant industry awards" by AVN Award|AVN and XBIZ Award|XBIZ and none of them are for "scene-related and ensemble categories
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: mdash; Notability ''guidelines'' are just that - guidelines. A subject or topic that meets a particular notability guideline IS NOT guaranteed a stand-alone Wikipedia article.  One of the primary functions of the AfD process is to determine if a subject, which is "presumed to be notable" (by virtue of meeting an SNG) is ''actually'' notable. Consensus at an AfD can and does override notability guidelines, especially when the article is not or cannot be in compliance with actual policy like BLP or V.  When the presumption of notability from the guideline conflicts with the requirement to have a neutral, well-sourced, well-written article, then you CAN and DO "just ignore" the guideline.  Not because you don't like it, but because meeting a notability guideline is NOT A GUARANTEE that the subject gets an article. Regarding this specific article, my opinion after having read the article and checked the sources, is that this person is '''not sufficiently notable''' to have a Wikipedia article,  be damned, because the sources are ''not sufficient'' to write a neutral, truly verifiable article about this living person. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)