Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alektra Blue
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alektra Blue
Not notable. She may have appeared in about 76 movies but by porn star standards, that isn't particularly notable. Epbr123 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no assertion of notability. Applying WP:N and WP:PORNBIO here. --Dennisthe2 22:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)- Change vote to Keep per below. --Dennisthe2 20:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - just another porn star, nothing special. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 00:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note Nominator has significantly edited his nominating statement. Also, according to WP:PORNBIO: "modern American heterosexual performers are usually notable if they appear in more than 75 films."
- Its actually if they've appeared in over 100 movies. Even then, it's a questionable criteria. Epbr123 00:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep At least 97 known film appearances, 3 short of the magic number. Clearly notable. Dekkappai 00:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite. Epbr123 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Number of films can contribute to a porn star's prolificness, and certainly more so than the Google test, which on its own is unquestionably invalid, but it does speak to both the size of an entertainer's fanbase/following (see WP:BIO) and the prolificness of their work and can be used in conjunction with more valid criteria of either WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO to make a determination of whether they have a significant following and/or are prolific in any genre. This actress doesn't even seem to be prolific in porn in general, or anything else for that matter. I can't find anything about this actress other than her IMDB (and similar) profiles and some minor mentions/inclusions on spammish porn sites. She doesn't even have a website of her own. While even that is not an immediate grounds for inclusion/exclusion, again, it is a piece of evidence that needs to be looked at as a part of a whole. All of the sources in this article are IMDB (or similar) and while such sites may be used as sources in conjunction with other reliable sources, including the actress' own website, if she has one, as this is an article about a person and would be considered a primary source provided the information is neutral, and preferably at least one third-party reliable source, IMDB-ish sites alone are not acceptable as reliable sources. Epbr123 20:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- What do you mean she doesn't have a website of her own? She does, it's right in the article. Not that that's sufficient, but as long as you are saying it, it may at least be true. She's also pretty prolific: 76 or 97 or whatever isn't sufficient in itself, but neither is it nothing. --AnonEMouse (squeak)
- Keep, maybe the article needs be extended, but is a notable name in the porn industry.Kamui99 05:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. She won Rookie Starlet of the Year at the 2006 F.A.M.E. Awards [1]. This looks like it's going to be a notable award, given its notable backers [2], but that was the first year it was given, so we don't have an article for it yet. She was a nominee for AVN Best New Starlet Award at AVN Awards 2007, but didn't win.[3]. That, plus the lots of films, I think is barely enough. But the article needs to say all that, which it doesn't, yet. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 04:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- If she really won the aforementioned award and given that she has almost 100 movies on her record, i'd say she fulfills the notable criteria. Thus Keep. I agree though that all this should be mentioned in the article. -- fdewaele, 28 March 2007, 14:45.
- Keep per AnonEMouse's FAME Award find. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per the award information found by AnonEMouse. Otherwise, based on the # of films alone, I would have suggested deletion. I will try to add the award information to the article shortly. -- Black Falcon 23:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, per the third source, she actually seems to have won an AVN Award in 2007 (category: Best New Starlet). -- Black Falcon 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, it was won by Naomi [4]. Epbr123 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- You caught me in an edit conflict ;) After writing the above comment, I noticed that it was actually just that one reviewer's "pick", so that's no longer mentioned in the article. However, I have added the first 2 sources. -- Black Falcon 23:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, it was won by Naomi [4]. Epbr123 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, per the third source, she actually seems to have won an AVN Award in 2007 (category: Best New Starlet). -- Black Falcon 23:25, 28 March 2007 (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.
