Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] July 26

[edit] Keeley

[edit] Secret Public

[edit] Plaid pantry

[edit] Nicola Tappenden

[edit] Westlake Data Corporation

[edit] Brent Walters

[edit] Véronique Diabolique

[edit] Brittain Fraley

[edit] Truths of Imovinn

[edit] Imovinn

[edit] Nathan Huff Miller II

[edit] The Millard Fillmore Gang

[edit] Tom Ferenson

[edit] Neruj

[edit] National Lampoon's Pledge This!

[edit] MarioandLuigi

[edit] Rufus Pfükke

[edit] Neo-new wave

[edit] Bejesus

[edit] Alex Marsley

[edit] The navies

[edit] Project Dogwaffle

[edit] Joobo the King of Wisdom

[edit] ABC Amateur Productions Network

[edit] Nintendo Hard

[edit] MBM (Message Board Misunderstanding)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. --Haham hanuka 08:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Stacy Burke

I am the author of this article. I am writing this nomination on behalf of User:Necromancing, who placed a VfD notice on the article. Keep, very notable bondage model. JIP | Talk 09:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. reads like a resume. Hamster Sandwich 09:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree it reads like a resume. My original, very short article was probably expanded by a devoted fanboy. Clean up. Still notable in the BDSM community, even if not notable in mainstream. JIP | Talk 09:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, article fails to establish notability, but google shows approx. 69.700 hit for "Stacy Burke", most of which mention this model. I advise the editor to expand to express her notability.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, and the article is truly awful. As is often noted, google hits are not a good estimator when it comes to porn. Quale 22:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I've trimmed the article a bit to make it read less like a resume or a fan page. Now the article is not truly awful, only awful. =) JIP | Talk 04:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, non-notable porn stars get about 500 google hits. Kappa 23:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for non-notability. Nandesuka 01:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean up. Ashmodai 08:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Bondage model with some notability. JamesBurns 09:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability and interest is established by number of Google hits. Hall Monitor 17:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep [5] --Haham hanuka 13:58, 31 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. --Haham hanuka 13:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaitlyn Ashley

  • Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep expand if possible. Hamster Sandwich 09:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It's hard to judge notability across different types of film, but I would say weak keep in this case - article does (barely) establish notability as a prolific actress. Sirmob 13:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep IMD shows almost 200 entries. I think this is enough for notability, but article should make that clearer.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable performer in this genre. 23skidoo 14:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable actress. Capitalistroadster 19:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Ashmodai 08:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable actress. JamesBurns 09:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. For the record, iafd lists her as being in 307 titles. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 02:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Noitall 04:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - --Haham hanuka 14:13, 31 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. --Haham hanuka 13:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adriana Sage

  • Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed to Keep IMDb listings, list of publications, shes a "pro". notable. Hamster Sandwich 09:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems to be notable enough in her field. -- Lochaber 12:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, not sure which version is supposed to resemble a diatribe. Kappa 13:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable performer in her genre. 23skidoo 14:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, 59 entries in IMD is enough for my notability criteria.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
  • Keep, Notable performer and there are several links to her name.-7121989
  • Keep and clean up. Notable performer but no need to know her shoe size. Capitalistroadster 19:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. Hall Monitor 19:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree she is notable. Many other adult actresses already on Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with that. -- Crevaner 20:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable porn actress. 59 movies is not many in that industry. Quale 22:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply: I've posted the bulk of my view below, but with regard to this particular statement I would like to say that appearing in a smaller number of more successful films (as opposed to cranking out some gonzo crap once a month) IS the main criteria for separating a notable actresses from a nobody. SteveAtlanta 17:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep because her name is one of the relatively few which can help sell an adult film or magazine. She is possibly the best-known Latina star, also is well-known in mainstream, and is sometimes seen under the Asian category. As for Quale's comment, it's a good thing that she hasn't been in more than 59 movies in so many years in the industry. Slap-em-out cheapies are the least notable and least prestigious films, and actresses who do many films a month will usually be burned-out and Not Notable within a couple of years, even if they avoid getting a drug habit. Barno 01:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. She is prominent enough that porn sites mention her name in mostly anonymous sample material if that means anything. Ashmodai 08:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable actress. JamesBurns 09:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I cannot help but take note that every aspiring unknown actor and college garage band in North America and Europe has a Wikipedia entry, and everyone is fine with that... yet half of all adult industry articles have had Votes for Deletion or comments in the discussion tab about their lack of appropriateness. I suppose it's possible that some person or persons are devout "porn connoisseurs" and want to ensure that Wikipedia takes the most scholarly posture possible with its adult industry articles. I suspect that it's more likely, given the patterns I see, that some person or persons have trepidation about the subject matter altogether and would like to eliminate as many articles as they can manage to persuade the community to go along with. Regardless, a chief strength of Wikipedia is its documentation of popular culture... it is THE place to go for information on a person of note who is unlikely to be featured in Encarta or the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

    In this specific case, I find it laughable to say Adriana Sage does not meet the critera of "notable". She has been the best known and most successful Latina adult actress of the past five years, and is one of the few individuals in the industry who has risen above the sea of anonymous faces and is used to sell product based on name-recognition. I agree that this article needs improvement... starting with the removal of her "shoe size" and so forth, then proceeding with more information about her career and contract-status-slash-professional relationships. However, making such improvements is not possible until this silly round of voting is over with. Bottom line, of course this article is 100% appropriate for Wikipedia, and I would strongly suggest to anyone suspecting otherwise that they carefully review Wikipedia's deletion policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy.

    The community memmbers who have spoken up on this issue have voted overwhelmingly in favor of "keep". Can we please hurry up and move past this nonsense?

    SteveAtlanta 17:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep She was one of 12 women that the UK edition of FHM presented in a booklet with the title Adult Entertainment: The Sexiest Porn Stars In The World (included with issue 02/2005) So at least she's notable according to one of the biggest men's magazines in the world. 85.166.247.58 16:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Haham hanuka 14:01, 31 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. --Haham hanuka 08:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kitty Marie

Necromancing began this VfD on 26 July 2005. Unfortunately, the procedure wasn't followed precisely, thus I am rectifying this. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hardly notable at this time. Google search using "Kitty Marie" (note quotes) shows only 35,300 hits; imdb lists 23 movies while iafd lists 67. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 03:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Breaks my heart, but she doesn't seem particularily recognizable. Ashmodai 08:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and expand. IMDB entry, borderline at best. JamesBurns 10:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. One day , next week or in a year , i want to prove something about a porn star named Marie. Is that Kitty? or Kelly? or Kathy? or Kristi? or or or? ... Even bad articles on no-names ( but with 35000 hits !!) are useful. MutterErde 09:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And you will have about 600,000 other online resources to find info about whichever pornstar or adult model you are researching. This is not Porncyclopedia. Considering the staggering number of pornstars, nude models, and adult "actresses" that have or will exist, I think a pretty high bar of notability is needed to be considered for inclusion here. For example, Kristi Myst (VfD below) seems to have been able to move into non-porno entertainment, which is relatively rare, and her involvement in pro wrestling has raised her notability greatly. Kitty Marie has done nothing like this. Soundguy99 15:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: You are arguing against the inclusion of pornography-related topics in general. Porn actresses can have a high notability for their career alone. For example, in Germany Gina Wild and Dolly Buster were widely known (even by those who did not watch their flics) even before they retired from the porn industry. Regardless of that pornography is its own field of interest and thus porn actresses needn't be known much outside that field, just as most computing and physics theories are not known much outside their fields. I'd wager more people know about various porn actresses than about the theories of quantum physics. Ashmodai 05:25, 29 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep.

[edit] Kristi Myst

Necromancing began this VfD on 26 July 2005. Unfortunately, the procedure wasn't followed precisely, thus I am rectifying this. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; she was a prominent personality in the de facto second biggest wrestling company in the USA for several years. McPhail 14:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand. Fairly notable; over 101 movies according to iafd. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs proper expansion though. Ashmodai 08:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable performer. JamesBurns 10:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Valid article if it gets cleaned up. Webslingr 19:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not enough reasons being solid enough to prompt deletion of it. TheMonkofDestiny 19:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand --Haham hanuka 14:01, 31 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. --Haham hanuka 08:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Lucy Lee

Necromancing began this VfD on 26 July 2005. Unfortunately, the procedure wasn't followed precisely, thus I am rectifying this. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. She's been in 125 movies on iafd. Plus, there's also another European model who goes by the same name and is, also, fairly notable herself. So, perhaps this can serve as a disambiguation of sorts? Just thinking out loud... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Move and Expand. Ashmodai 08:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Joe has been keeping abreast of this issue. Lucy Lee appears to be a fairly common name going by Google so a dab page wouldnt be out of the question. JamesBurns 10:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Haham hanuka 13:56, 31 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. --Haham hanuka 08:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Tawnee Stone

Necromancing began this VfD on 26 July 2005. Unfortunately, the procedure wasn't followed precisely, thus I am rectifying this. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Week keep, expand, and wikify. As much as I am loathe to admit it, a Google search dismisses the non-notability claim... over 569,000 hits. The page should be cleaned up a bit, though. [17] -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The Internet pornography industry has a whole sub-industry devoted to Googlebombing the names of models and actresses, and even employs Wikipedia and its sibling projects to do it (reverting bulk additions of links to pornography web sites is a common task across all projects). The Google Test is completely unreliable when it comes to Internet pornography actresses and models. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flick Shagwell and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jordan Capri. Uncle G 13:12:19, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Talk page does a great job of pointing out a serious problem with most adult star articles: verifiability. The talk page says "I grew up with her and can vouch for all the facts". Original research, not verifiable. Google test is not persuasive for porn. Normal bio criterio would be more persuasive: accomplishments, awards, recognition outside the porn world, etc. Quale 03:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite, but Keep. She is notable enough, although the article is quite lacking. Ashmodai 08:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable pr0n actress. JamesBurns 10:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The article has a severe verifiability problem, that is endemic to people in the pornography industry. The biographies that accompany the pictures are well-known for being made up, and, by the nature of the industry, there are often no other sources of biographical information at all. The secrecy that these people surround themselves with, as a consequence of what they do, makes them too secret for Wikipedia. Moreover, as Quale says, a pornography actress does not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria for simply being a pornography actress. There is no evidence that this person has been on a magazine cover, caused a legal controversy or a scandal, starred in a mainstream film, run a major business, written a book, or been first in a field. All that we verifiably know about this person, once the "I went to school with her." information is subtracted, is her pseudonym, purported age, and job. If those alone were enough to satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, everyone with a green card would qualify for a biographical article. Delete. Uncle G 13:12:19, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Famous Internet adult model. Teklund 17:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. If she is considered notable, there's going to be a thousand more "porn stars" whose bio will be up on wikipedia soon. Alex.tan 03:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Considering that there are more types of information than just the biography about such actresses and models (e.g. a filmography, a list of studios they have worked for, magazines they have appeared in, etc etc) biographical data makes up only a part of the information -- and if no (serious) biographical data is available, then we can't put any biographical data online. Besides, the private data released by porn studios about their models isn't usually much more fabricated or questionable than that released by other, non-porn, agencies -- except for the entirely fake stories you find next to girls on page 3, but everyone knows those are made up based on the photo, not the girl herself anyway (besides, they aren't intended to be taken serious) :P Ashmodai 18:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, do a cleanup. Pavel Vozenilek 19:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A waste of time. Never likely to be much more than a rehash of dubious publicity material. CalJW 20:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable.  Grue  05:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep very notable indeed. --R.Koot 15:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. I don't see why so many porn pages that are obviously worth keeping get nominated for deletion. --Tothebarricades 03:25, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, because I said so. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 21:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Comment, for those who actually read the article before dismissing "just another porn star", you'll notice that it reconciles her fake biography, with her actual details. Most of the details are weakly 'verified' through google searches. http://www.orsm.net/archive_jul_04.php Dan wrote:Subject: Tawnee Stone's brother...Dear Orsm, I live in Crystal Lake, Illinois, USA, as does the brother of Tawnee Stone. He graduated a year before I did. A week ago, a friend and employee at Hollywood Video Rental caught him stealing 2 video games. http://www.collegeslackers.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=295&st=75 cool story.. Tawnee Stone used to serve me pancakes at IHOP in crystal lake, IL back before she became an internet whore. She graduated with some of my buddies. http://www.uselessjunk.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1130&mode=nested&order=0&thold=-1 tawnee stone from Crystal Lake South High School, Crystal Lake IL 1997-2001. I can probably dig up a yearbook pic if anyone cares. http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=24005 On another note, a few fellas at another message board that I know use to go to an IHOP in the Chicago area where none other than Tawnee Stone use to work at, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

Comment I agree with User:Sherurcij, who wrote the paragraph above. There's even more evidence still on the page called Talk:Tawnee Stone. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:15, July 30, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. --Haham hanuka 13:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Shay Sweet

Necromancing began this VfD on 26 July 2005. Unfortunately, the procedure wasn't followed precisely, thus I am rectifying this. -- 65.10.74.125 02:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as notable with 263 (known) titles to her credit; again, Allie Sin only has under 20 to her present credit. As for the lack of a biography, there's just not much information is available for one -- doesn't mean that it should be deleted. For notability, Google has 400,000 results under "Shay Sweet" (note the quotes, which make for more precise searching); "Allie Sin" has just under 20,000 -- which are mainly dupes, AFAICT. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 10:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've just noticed this page is not on the VfD's for 26 June 2005. I'll correct it when back from work, in the hopes that this nomination can receive the proper exposure. Or, unless someone actually wants to follow the how to list pages for deletion guidelines, I wouldn't mind. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 10:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Easyas12c 11:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep @ Necromanticing.Is your vfd-collection a special kind of humour ? MutterErde 01:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Special:Contributions/Necromancing
PS: And now I see you are replacing good old pics ( like in Kate Bush history , Kristin Kreuk history or Petra Haden history. LOL) with so called "promo pics" without source. But I guess , not all will laugh.MutterErde 08:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Definitely notable enough. Ashmodai 08:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable pr0n actress. JamesBurns 10:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - --Haham hanuka 14:10, 31 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.