Deletion of Vanessa Veracruz

Comment: If the "XBIZ Girl/Girl Performer of the Year award" was a significant award, then reliable sources independent of XBIZ and the nominees and awardees would have discussed the award. But they haven't. All but one of the sources lacks any pretense of independence. That is an interview published by the aptly named ''Fleshbot'', a project of clickbait gossip site Gawker, which recently filed bankruptcy after court decisions that ruled it violated personal privacy. This source is utterly worthless for a |biography of a living person on Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: I still don't see how the subject has met GNG by "receiving significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article says virtually nothing about the subject, and the sources in the article are not even close to enough to develop a Wikipedia:WHYN|reliable, balanced biography of a living person. No new sources have been presented at the AfD either. This is essentially a  listing, and nothing else
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:DIRECTORY)

Comment: These AfDs for ''winners'' are getting ridiculous. The XBIZ Girl/Girl Performer of the Year award is not significant according to whom? (In addition, |an article being short is not grounds for deletion.) '''Erpert
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stub (WP:STUB)

Comment: for now, start a new AfD only if PORNBIO is changed. This clearly passes the current #1 criteria, "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." I bet almost everyone claiming that Lesbian Performer of the Year awards aren't notable wouldn't say the same thing about Gay Performer of the Year awards. It would be an obvious double standard to consider Gay Performer of the Year notable on Wikipedia under PORNBIO, but not Lesbian Performer of the Year. I actually think it's a shame these porn ceremonies took so long to add this category, which should have been created many years, possibly even decades, ago. I'm willing to have a discussion on PORNBIO and may even agree to tightening it, but only if the proposed exclusion is reasonable. Here is what is definitely not a reasonable exclusion: genre-specific awards. First of all, PORNBIO itself supports the inclusion of genre-specific awards ("has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre"). What better evidence of meeting that criteria is there than genre-specific awards? The exclusion of genre-specific awards would also result in the loss of entire categories on WP, like :Category:Actors in gay pornographic films and :Category:Transsexual pornographic film actors. Now, here is what actually is a reasonable exclusion I may agree to: temporarily-awarded categories. Perhaps PORNBIO#1 could be renamed to "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in categories that are scene-related, ensemble, or less than # years old are excluded from consideration." I think five is good enough, but I know many won't agree to that. 10 years, I think, would be the highest possible number that can be considered reasonable so that entire ceremonies, like Hot d'Or, aren't entirely left out of PORNBIO. The Hot d'Or awards appear to have only three 10-year+ categories anyways (Best European Starlet, Best European Actress, Best European Actor), so a 10-year minimum is enough to reduce the number of articles that meet PORNBIO. But, this isn't the place to discuss this. At the moment, Veracruz passes PORNBIO
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: per |DEL8 as lacking notability. Even accepting that the subject's awards satisfy PORNBIO, the coverage is much too thin to find notability. The SNGs and sub-guidelines, including PORNBIO, are for determining notability in debatable cases where there is some meaningful coverage, but it's unclear whether or not that coverage meets GNG; they should not be used to find notability where it is plainly lacking. ''See'' {{slink|WP:BIO|Additional criteria}} ("Meeting one or more additional criteria does not guarantee that a subject should be included."); |NRVE; ''cf.'' |WHYN. The closest thing to a qualifying source is the ''Fleshbot'' piece,Holly Kingstown, ''http://straight.fleshbot.com/6010017/twenty-questions-with-porn-star-vanessa-veracruz Twenty Questions with Porn Star Vanessa Veracruz'', Fleshbot (June 29, 2015), ''archived at'' https://archive.is/0LmrJ Archive.is but a single brief interview is not nearly enough, and I have grave doubts about Fleshbot's independence.{{r|Rebbing's Fleshbot note
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL8||WP:NRVE||WP:WHYN)

Comment: essentially per Cullen's argument above. There is certainly no coverage in significant, reliable sources. As I understand the linked guideline, PORNBIO only establishes a presumption of notability: if we cannot satisfy , then we set aside the guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)