Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey James (second nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casey James

Subject is non-notable and nothing in the article states why she is notable for a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Would be a CSD A7 had it not been for the fact that it was previously (and inappropriately) nominated previously. Therefore, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 04:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, while I don't approve of the article (on the same grounds as the previous nomination), I feel the previous position on deletion should hold. Notability is asserted by the particular movie. --Alphachimp ^talk 05:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:PORN_BIO. And compulsory lessons on correct use of the semi-colon for article creator. -- GWO
• Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:PORN BIO. --Coredesat 07:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gareth Owen and Coredesat. DarthVader 08:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I wasn't sure at first, but was swayed by the fact that this was previously nominated previously ;) Grutness...wha? 09:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not very prolific or been in anything overly popular it would be appear. Wickethewok 14:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She's been around for about 15 years and is more notable than a lot of folks listed in the "List of big-busted porn stars" or whatever it's called. WP:PORN is not official policy nor is it even considered an official guideline yet. 23skidoo 22:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - needs some try at referencing from reliable secondary sources. snug 00:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia does not ignore the porn industry. The industry and its more conspicuous performers are, by long-established precedent, considered notable. This particular performer has ample screen credits. Moreover, her physical attributes perhaps count as two arguments :) in favor of notability, in the same way that a List of the world's tallest people would be notable. Community members should be careful not to label things as nonnotable just because they personally find them of interest. If that were acceptable, we would have rather fewer articles on Byzantine history. Eastmain 04:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. We are not ignoring the porn industry and Wikipedia itself has many articles on porn stars. (Just take a look at Category:Porn stars.) Also, physical attributes should never be a sole factor in determining notability, as beauty and ugliness are not NPOV, but a matter of perception. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 23:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per 23skidoo. Oddly enough, the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey James was a near unanimous keep, what has changed? Yamaguchi先生 06:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read more into that discussion. The only reason the article was kept was because the nomination was inappropriately made. Basically it was felt that the nominator was merely trolling and the criteria for the then-VfD was invalid. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey James, and because the subject is notable. bbx 07:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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.