Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Rain (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amber Rain

No indication of notability; nothing to write. The article was nominated for deletion before, a month and a half ago, which discussion ended without consensus, and since then, has sat as a "to do" item in WP:P*, with the request to improve the article. Today I tried my best to improve it. I doubled the number of references the article had. I tried to add text to the article from those references, but there just wasn't anything interesting to add. I have nothing against porn star articles, I have improved several that were threatened with deletion to the extent that they were kept ... but this one is as good as it's going to get, and that isn't very good. There just isn't anything to be written about Amber Rain that couldn't be written about a hundred others, she really is just another porn star, no awards, no interesting writeups, not particularly prolific or unusually well known within the industry, not notable within a genre niche, nothing. As Joe wrote, she still doesn't meet WP:PORN BIO, as in the previous nomination. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree, just another porn star. Wildthing61476 16:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cute but, as per above, just another... Fan-1967 16:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Note... and based on the picture, I'm a little skeptical about one of the claims in the infobox. Fan-1967 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. The article doesn't have to meet WP:PORN BIO, which is not policy. I find it hard to believe that there's nothing else to be said about her. She has worked with Ed Powers, after all. wikipediatrix 18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Question How many hundreds of performers have worked with Ed Powers? Are they all notable? Fan-1967 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Not sure, but my instinct tells me "probably", assuming one weeds out the people who only did a film or two in the 1980s and haven't worked since. She seems to have an ongoing successful career and she Googles quite well - better, in fact, than mainstream actresses like, say, Annabeth Gish. Note that everyone is calling her a porn star, not just a porn actress. wikipediatrix 18:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It's the common phrase, and most people don't want to disrespect the acting profession. Fan-1967 18:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course she "Googles quite well". The pornography industry has a whole sub-industry devoted to Googlebombing the names of its actresses and actors. Wikipedia:Google Test explains this particular failing of the Google Test. And counting Google hits is not research, in any case. One has to actually read the pages that Google turns up. Uncle G 19:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please, please, wikipediatrix, find something else to say. I would love to find something interesting, unique, notable that couldn't be written about the next 100 porn stars. (By the way, as Fan-1967 writes, "porn star" is just the accepted term, and does not connote fame; it's a job description. Some are notable, most aren't. Using "actress" has similar issues implying acting. See Taija Rae's famous quote.) I tried hard to find a reason to keep this article, or even to write something interesting and encyclopedic, and just couldn't. Those 4 lines are as good as I could get. I really think there is no more - but if you prove me wrong, I'll be only too glad to keep the article. As Uncle G writes, read the pages that come up. I did that. They're image galleries with no useful text, hundreds of them. There were 2 articles and 3 database entries, with readable content of ... 4 lines. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, if you discount WP:PORN BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete this isn't smut-pedia --Yunipo 13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep,possible minor notability. I echo wikipediatrix's comment above that there must be more info. In the plus column, the "sexual exuberance" line at the end made me smile. -Colonial One 16:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You're the second person to opine that there must be more info, but nobody can find any. Fan-1967 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice to discourage rampant Googlebombing as noted by UncleG. Daniel Case 03:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please she has appeared in 70 films that is notable to me Yuckfoo 22:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and verifiable. --Myles Long 13:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and verifiable. bbx 20:36, 3 August 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.