Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelique dos Santos

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 DELETE as failing WP:PORNBIO. No notability asserted or sources given. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Angelique dos Santos

Angelique dos Santos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable per WP:PORNBIO. Google search reveals no reliable sources that satisfies the general criteria of WP:BIO. Notability stamp since March. Vinh1313 (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki PornBio..... "Big-breast pornography, also called big-boob or big-bust pornography features women with large breasts. Some viewers prefer performers with breast implants, others prefer women who have naturally large breasts."

I don't know how this would not cover her.... She was probably one of the most popular in Europe at a time, and made big in roads in the US... Msjayhawk (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Conditional keep. She's clearly notable in the genre, so it's hard to see how she could be deleted. That is, if it really turns out to be the case that sources can't be found, then I suppose a delete is the only way to go. But it seems obvious to me that her notability is not in question; it's just a matter that people haven't gotten around to putting reliable resources to that effect on her page. Xihr (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I am questioning her notability. How is it obvious? Because she's prolific? Because she's appeared in so and so magazines? Vinh1313 (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment on Msjayhawk. If you're claiming that she satisfies "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature.", please explain what makes her contributions unique to big bust pornography and if the contention can be cited to a reliable source. That is if she is "one of the most popular in Europe", there is a reliable source stating that rather than rely on personal knowledge as it could be seen as puffery. Vinh1313 (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable: "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following."

Pornographic actors

Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres. Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature. Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media (of the genre).

Msjayhawk (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I ask again, what are the unique contributions she made to big bust pornography and are there reliable sources to verify them? Further, you are misconstruing the third criteria. There is no implied "of the genre". Notable mainstream media means notable non-pornographic media... like a television show or a movie. There are no reliable sources to verify either criteria because Dos Santos satisfies neither criteria. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
To clarify about the unique contributions question: What makes appearing Score, Color Climax, etc so unique compared to any other model of the genre? Vinh1313 (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're claiming that she has a large fan base or has a significant cult following, you must have reliable sources that states she has a large fan base or cult following. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2008 (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.