Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanna Jet

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 delete. Two keep 'votes' are from very new users/IPs, and the arguments for keeping are generally unconvincing, hinging on Wikipedia being an indiscriminate collection of information, which it is not. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joanna Jet

Subject does not seem sufficiently notable, e.g. doesn't appear to meet guidelines in proposed Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) Jll 09:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Google search for exact name brings up 42,000+ hits. Article does need expanding though. Doesn't that image on the page need removing?--Andeh 09:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to the adult film/porn industry's use of "Googlebombing" to influence rankings on search engines, the Google test is not exactly a good method of determining the notability of a performer. Jll 10:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed to weak keep for now, need to do more research.--Andeh 10:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If we had every porn actor/actress on Wikipedia we'd be swamped. Captainj 10:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Complete nobody. Athenaeum 11:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. PJM 12:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Comment read Wikipedia:Google_Test Ghits are useless all around IMHO. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. I believe GHits (or any other search engine hits for that matter) are utterly worthless and should never be used to determine notability. But that's just my opinion on the subject. (Also, the article in question qualifies for CSD A7, so it might've been easier just to tag it as {{db-bio}}. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me at CSD A7; I'll bear that in mind in future. Jll 21:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete DJ Clayworth 15:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Faris b 07:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Why should it be deleted? Wiki is an encyclopedia and it should have every entry possible. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the article, I looked at it and it seems fine to me. Plus, she is a mainstream transexual porn acress, not one of the "underlings" I vote keep it.
• Keep (assumed) From Craig Campbell: Indeed, within her specialty, this lady is one of the top performers. Possibly the photo could be replaced, but if Wikipedia is to be comprehensive the entry should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.180.157 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 5 June 2006.
• Keep Lc691 02:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Joe Beaudoin's proposed porn bio guidelines would systematically exclude gay and especially trans porn stars. They are explicitly heterosexist as written. It does make one wonder what kind of agenda is being pushed here. I do assume Joe and Jll are acting in good faith and are simply ignorant of some of the people who live in the same world as them. Nevertheless, we should not let their ignorance about our existence turn Wikipedia into a "queers not allowed" website.
  • Why not help define it better then? Join the discussion! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:20, 6 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.