Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Iron (2nd nomination)
Porn is one of those subject areas where we have a ''tremendous'' problem with the active editors trying to create their own special ''exemptions'' from having to actually get the topics over  — such as an excessive reliance on XBIZ (a |user-generated industry PR trade blog) in lieu of actual |reliable sourcing, or the notion that even though ''any'' other award in ''any'' other field of endeavour has to be sourced to media coverage ''about'' that award before winning or being nominated for it counts as a notability claim, porn should somehow get a special dispensation to use the award's own self-published website about itself as the source. (Never mind that the existence of ''reliable'' media coverage ''about'' an award is how we ''determine'' whether that award ''is'' notable enough to ''count'' as a notability claim — in the isolated standalone case of porn, we're supposed to accept that something is a notable award just because somebody ''asserts'' that it is, ''regardless'' of its sourceability or lack thereof.) I want to stress that I'm no prude — I'm as much an aficionado of porn as the next horny single guy — but at the ''Wikipedia'' level, porn does ''not'' get to make up its own special subject-specific ''exemptions'' from having to follow the same content rules as any other subject area. SNGs do not create ''exemptions'' from having to pass GNG on the sourcing, but serve merely to clarify the types of things that are ''accepted'' as notability claims — but the claim ''does'' still have to be ''sourceable'' to a GNG-passing volume of ''reliable'' source coverage before the SNG is ''actually'' passed, and SNGs do ''not'' confer ''exemptions'' from RSability just because passage of an SNG has been ''claimed
— User:Bearcat, 18:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:USERG||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Notability)