Serenity Cox: The big ugly alien ( talk ) 05:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Wikipedia should represent all diversity, including people who work in the porn industry (an area Wikipedia itself wants to build out).  Nearly half a billion views on PornHub is no easy feat, and people are interested to know the story behind these kinds of views and individual behind it.  The "low quality sources" are highly respected publications within that industry, and proven to be factual sites.  2A00:23C7:BD94:4101:2000:A71D:505C:B905 ( talk ) 08:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  AVN and XBIZ were found to be generally reliable , with considerations for the latter.  Cortador ( talk ) 10:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The key concern about porn trade press is determining who is speaking.  The AVN citation is an obvious press release.  The XBIZ citations not only reek of churnalism , but they are largely base on what the subject or her promoters say.  Depth of coverage is also a concern.  Porn awards tend to be promotional fluff, and these sources don't appear to be exceptions.  • Gene93k ( talk ) 11:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I would typically agree with you about industry awards, the Pornhub Awards (which have dedicated pages on Wikipedia) are based on site views and analytics so I consider these awards to carry more weight and be more substantial than “promotional fluff”.  I also find AVN and XBIZ to be trusted source of truth.  SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 07:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As the original author of the entry, I feel I need to highlight my reasoning behind creating it.  I firstly came here to create an archival history of the Pornhub Awards (which I still will), however after googling Serenity I created this entry.  I found there were 100s of sites out there with unverified biography information on her, but I wanted to create a verified source of truth (based on citations) about this individual since she is my favourite model (and I imagine to many others based on views of her content across the web).  Both AVN and XBIZ are reliable sources.  SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 07:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions .  • Gene93k ( talk ) 11:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is Serenity Cox the name of an actor or of a recurring role?  AVN and XBIZ, and especially Pornhub, seem to regularly confuse the two.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 20:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Image uploaded has been published elsewhere, red flag number one.  This [23] is the only non porn industry source I can find, somewhat trivial.  Here, but we don't consider this a RS [24] .  Lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You seemed to over look the coverage in AVN (Adult Entertainment News) of which there is four articles (AVN is on the list of reliable resources) as well as several other publications, you have only chosen to mention the ones matching your narrative.  I have also addressed the comment about the photo being a “red flag” within Wikimedia Commons (where you have also flagged that for deletion).  For the most part here I feel personal beliefs on the porn industry are being imposed with flagging for deletion.  If you were to ask anyone under 40 who Serenity Cox is, you would find at least 7/10 people would know.  She has been on the homepage of Pornhub (the 4 most visited website in the world [25] https://www.semrush.com/trending-websites/global/all ) pretty much daily for the last 3 years.  Regardless of the industry, women should celebrated for their accomplishment (with personal beliefs aside), and not contributing to gender bias within Wikipedia (see Women in Red for more details on that).  SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 21:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's all coverage from the same sources.  Gender bias is fine, but lack of sourcing is the issue.  The last few articles I've created have been of either promotional models, influencers or the like, all of which have been female.  I've attempted to source using RS; it can be done, but it's very difficult.  We shouldn't waive requirements because of under-representation.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Issue with image has been resolved.  Added additional "non-porn" related sources and will continue to research and update over the weekend.  SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 18:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] More sources have now been added.  SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 15:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The sourcing is rather poor and achievements seem to be lower tier for the industry.  Awards have been pretty much dismissed anyway for sole notability purposes.  A number of other performers with bigger achievements/awards within the industry have been deleted because of there being insufficient sourcing.  Since she's still active, the article can be recreated if better sourcing turns up in the future.  GoldenAgeFan1 ( talk ) 03:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Since my comments above, I have gone through the cited sources and did a WP:BEFORE search for better sources.  The independent search found nothing useful.  The 21 citations fall under the following categories:  1. generally unreliable (Fleshbot, WP:DAILYSTAR , Pornhub)  2. primary sources (quotes and interviews including MEL  ) 3. Promotional (obvious press releases from Pornhub, xHamster, etc.) and  4. non-substantial mentions (IMDb citations, award rosters, top 10 listicle entry).  WP:BASIC and WP:ENT failure without reliable independent secondary source coverage.  • Gene93k ( talk ) 12:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Opinion is divided and notability is established not by how popular someone is on a website but by reliable sources and there is a fundamental disagreement on whether porn sources are reliable or unreliable PR fluff.  But I have to say the cherry on the top of this discussion is reading that Women in Red champions writing articles on porn actresses to combat gender bias.  That was hysterically twisted.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Slightly offended that you think it’s hysterical that it wouldn’t account towards the Women in Red initiative, that is your bias that people in porn are less deserving of being credible for their achievements.  However, it’s not our personal feelings or bias being discussed here so I will move on.  I am appreciative that you haven’t instantly sided with the people saying there are no credible sources and are open to the discussion that porn sources could indeed be credible.  Both WP:AVN and WP:XBIZ are both listed under Reliable Sources, are are heavily referenced on the Wikipedia page.  The fact is, the porn industry is an under reported industry, I know it is not based on popularity, but industry resources should be recognized as Reliable Sources as they have no ulterior motive and are reporting on what is notable within the industry.  SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your citations to WP:RSPS (WP:AVN/WP:XBIZ) should also note that both sources have caution flags attached.  It is important to distinguish a news article from a republished press release.  The porn trade press citations in the article are obvious promotional press releases, lacking intellectual authorship by the newsroom and independence from the subject or their promoters.  • Gene93k ( talk ) 05:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Poor sourcing as comments above.   FYI - I am one of the Women in Red , and have hung to the rear on this because I just don't want to be involved.  But this is one of those situations, where if I don't speak up, I will always regret it.  Wikipedia does not censor, however this is not a victimless industry.   I thought long and hard before commenting here.   My "Delete" is based on, not what the porn fans see on screen (or wherever), but the sourcing issue.  Also, later accounts by porn stars such as those of Linda Lovelace about how they were initiated into the industry.  Serenity Cox was also initiated into the industry through her husband.  Only she knows how accurate her article is.  But the other side of the coin is the Opposition to pornography movement.   Some escape from the  industry, and later tell their story.  That industry is not victimless, and the only way we ever know differently, is if a performer comes forward to tell their story.  — Maile ( talk ) 21:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You should listen to her podcast interview on World Wide Celeb before making accusations like that about her husband.  She comes across as educated and well informed about the industry.  And the sourcing has come from RS on XBIZ and AVN (links above).  SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 22:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Didn't make any accusations.  My comments were based on the article wording which you wrote : "Cox’s journey into the adult industry started in her thirties, as a hobby between her and her husband, documenting their sexual adventures in an open marriage. In 2021 they began sharing some of this footage on online platforms, and by 2022 they were posting regularly on PornHub" — Maile ( talk ) 22:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : AVN and XBIZ sources are fine, combined with the magazine article from Oaktree b there is enough here for a weak pass.  Let'srun ( talk ) 17:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I don't believe the coverage of her in RS is significant enough to satisfy the GNG.  An acknowledgment of an award plus one or two quotes are not going to cut it.  Neither is her opinion of having sex on the beach.  Morbidthoughts ( talk ) 19:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] UPDATE: Added additional news and citations.  Also, it is worth noting the page has over 1000 views a day.  There is certainly a demand for information on her.  SanDiegoDan ( talk ) 23:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Five citations were added in two edits.  The first edit was flagged by the system for using a deprecated (unreliable) source in two citations, the Daily Star .  The Fleshbot citation is also junk.  The second edit added a cite to XBIZ, award nominations roster, and a cite to AVN , which is marked as a press release in the URL .  Porn award nominations were deprecated from PORNBIO 10 years ago.  With 15 nominees per category, an AVN nomination is something for everyone, especially something for every studio .  A claim of significance from a promotional source does not advance the case for notability.  • Gene93k ( talk ) 02:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete AVN and XBIZ are essentially industry press releases, they are not sufficiently independent of the subject.  The rest are primary sources, non-RS, or award / top 10 mentions.  Zaathras ( talk ) 02:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep , mainstream media rarely write about porn actresses, and she seems really notable.  2A06:C701:4BCB:5400:1ECC:D6FF:FE17:4CB3 ( talk ) 13:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above is an invalid keep rationale, provided by a 1-edit IP user.  Zaathras ( talk ) 23:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Draftify – Sourcing includes relevant trade publications, I wouldn't say press releases.  TLA tlak 02:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You would be wrong, we do not use AVN and Xbix releases to establish notability.  Zaathras ( talk ) 23:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I notice now that they ring of press releases.  Changing to draftify as a WP:ATD .  TLA tlak 12:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT per review of available sources which are generally WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions.  The arguments about AVN and XBIZ sources being sufficient are not valid as these are essentially rewarmed press releases ( WP:SPIP ) and are not sufficient for establishing notability.  -- K.e.coffman ( talk ) 07:17, 21 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete