Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Juggs (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, let's keep it. - Richard Cavell 00:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ashley Juggs
Model no longer satisfies WP:PORNBIO. Survived last deletion nomination because there was a pornographic movie named after her. This is no longer a criteria for notability. Epbr123 22:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. Dismas|(talk) 22:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Keep per Dekkappai. Dismas|(talk) 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)- Comment She appears to be a model, not an actress. Does WP:PORNBIO apply? 209.78.98.27 22:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- If WP:PORNBIO doesn't apply, she still doesn't pass WP:BIO. Epbr123 02:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per comment above, no sign of notability even if WP:PORNBIO doesn't apply. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:BIO: "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Three such sources are given in the article. And further, "Entertainers... Notability can be determined by: Multiple features in credible magazines and newspapers" Her IMDB entry lists two such features. -- Dekkappai 18:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Danni.com profile is not 'independent of the subject' as Ashley Juggs models for that website. The Rotten Tomatoes filmography is as invalid as an IMDb filmography as a criteria for notability. I doubt that Score magazine counts as a 'credible magazine'. Epbr123 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Score has been around since 1992, and it's not a 'credible magazine' in the porn, and particularly big-bust genre? It's often pointed out that the Notability requirements are there to keep out vanity pages, and articles on "my neighbor's kid." Well, this article has multiple sourcing, and shows multiple video appearances, multiple magazine appearances... This is not "my neighbor's kid" we're talking about. It would be to Wikipedia's advantage to have the best biography available on subjects just like this. The "Notability" requirements are abused when they are used to delete articles on a minor celebrities, rather than to keep out vanity pages. Dekkappai 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Appearing in a porn mag a couple of times doesn't establish notability. Probably around a thousand models have appeared in Score magazine. She should only be kept if it can be shown she is one of the top models in the big-bust genre. I think you've made your point that all porn stars should be included regardless of notability. Epbr123 23:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Disagreeing with you is hardly the same as making a WP:POINT. People are bound to disagree with you at times; there's no reason to assume they do it in bad faith. -- Black Falcon 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Appearing in a porn mag a couple of times doesn't establish notability. Probably around a thousand models have appeared in Score magazine. She should only be kept if it can be shown she is one of the top models in the big-bust genre. I think you've made your point that all porn stars should be included regardless of notability. Epbr123 23:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Score has been around since 1992, and it's not a 'credible magazine' in the porn, and particularly big-bust genre? It's often pointed out that the Notability requirements are there to keep out vanity pages, and articles on "my neighbor's kid." Well, this article has multiple sourcing, and shows multiple video appearances, multiple magazine appearances... This is not "my neighbor's kid" we're talking about. It would be to Wikipedia's advantage to have the best biography available on subjects just like this. The "Notability" requirements are abused when they are used to delete articles on a minor celebrities, rather than to keep out vanity pages. Dekkappai 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Danni.com profile is not 'independent of the subject' as Ashley Juggs models for that website. The Rotten Tomatoes filmography is as invalid as an IMDb filmography as a criteria for notability. I doubt that Score magazine counts as a 'credible magazine'. Epbr123 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep so we're going to change rules and renominate.... ahh yes the old "I'll keep listing shit on AFD til I get my way" argument. Validly kept last time... nothing of significance has changed. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, something has changed. Read the first line. Epbr123 10:53, 19 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.
