Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelique (model)

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. howcheng {chat} 19:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angelique (model)

This is just some small porn star. She's hardly noteworthy, and this article just seems like an advertisement. --pielover87 01:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This AfD was originally listed under Angelique instead of Angelique (model). Angelique is not an article about a porn star; it's about a Japanese dating sim (i.e. not an actual person). The porn star article would be Angelique (model). Since the reason for this AfD is not clearly indicated by the nomination, I recommend that the nominator clarify it before we actually try to submit our votes. --Metropolitan90 01:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • From the nominator's contribution history, I see that this was supposed to be a nomination for Angelique (model). I'll fix it accordingly. No vote. --Metropolitan90 01:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep although stubby and fairly trivial. Draeco 06:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• No vote. Gets quite a few Google hits [1], but I've been told that porn-bios are difficult to find verifiable information for... Blackcats 08:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Effectively advertising. Calsicol 09:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, she's made 19 films and has done a fair amount of magazine work. -- Kjkolb 11:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete adspam. Durova 13:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep, large number of google hits, 19 films, magazine work, demonstrate she has an audience. Not advertising. Kappa 14:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is working in the commercial sex trade alone sufficient to constitute notability? How many women offering to perform in such films are rejected? Numbers of Google hits are misleading; otherwise those hot teenage cheerleaders who so often email me offering me a low-rate home mortgage to finance my Viagra purchase would be notable, too. Monicasdude 15:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete.NN Model. NN small business. Whole point of this is to promote the business.Obina 21:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If we keep almost actor/actress with an IMDb entry, I don't know why a porn star of medium fame should be excluded. If the link is a problem, just delete it. -- Kjkolb 11:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• The major problem is that porn people tend not to release verifiable accurate personal bio data, so much of what exists in IMDB and the porn equivalents is either speculation or self-promotional fiction. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If something cannot be verified. It is just left out of the article. We don't need a complete biography or even any personal bio data. You can just have the performer's name and the work that they have done. Also, when a star claims something that cannot be verified, you can just say, "X claims that..." -- Kjkolb 10:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• And Britannica is full of entries about people along the lines of "X is the stagename of a person whose real name and date of birth is unknown; they claim to be Y and Z, fans describe them as prety good." :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

They do have entries for some people whose real names aren't known, like the Man in the Iron Mask [2]. The question then becomes whether this particular person is notable enough for our standards, which aren't as restrictive as Britannica's. I'd lean toward Keep on this one, in part because it's not bad as stubs go (written with decent grammar and formatted properly), and in part because there's an affiliation with Score, a relatively large presence in the industry. -Colin Kimbrell 15:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete apparent promotion, no encyclopaedic content, porncruft and fails the "who cares?" test. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertizing. Lotusduck 07:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Angelique's posting is valid and the information posted is correct. She has been a major model in her field for over 10 years. Has many magazine covers & pictorials to her credit and at least 10 films.

• Comment I have removed advertising, does not change the fact that this was probably written as advertising.

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.