Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandy Talore

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. John254 02:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandy Talore

Brandy Talore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has been speedy deleted several times as CSD A7. DRV determined that the FAME Award constituted an assertion of notability, so this matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration. I say weak delete until better sources arise, pending other opinions. Xoloz 00:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable per WP:PORNBIO. Reliable sources provided. Epbr123 00:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Where? None of them are linked in the article. The ones linked in the articlesimply repeat without question the statements of her and publishers. —Centrx→talk • 02:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, passes WP:PORNBIO. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Where are the reliable sources? —Centrx→talk • 02:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 03:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject is now notable per WP:PORNBIO; she wasn't during the previous times when the article was deleted on the basis of CSD A7. Tabercil 03:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO hands down. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you have anything to add to the discussion? This is not a vote. —Centrx→talk • 02:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notable as per notable per WP:PORNBIO Harlowraman 16:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of prostitutes. --PEAR (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's correct. But why do you think this article should be deleted? Epbr123 19:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Uh-huh. But PEAR, your argument sounds to me like "I don't like it", and I would suggest you read IDONTLIKEIT to see how valid it is. Tabercil 23:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Epbr123, one of our most fervent deleters of non-notable porn star articles. Nixon in China (phrase). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • He simply votes to delete ones that have no sources whatsoever and not even a pretension to any claim to fame. He still votes to keep ones, like Amy Ried or Katie Gold, that have no reliable sources and which then languish unimproved. —Centrx→talk • 02:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I wish. Here's one going on right now, where there is a strong pretension of claim to fame (17 years in the business, which for this business is really impressive, 250 films, which is less impressive in this business than it would be in any other, but still isn't chicken feed, activism allegedly covered by mainstream newspapers), but a shortage of specified reliable sources (though an allegation that they are out there), and Epbr123 is one of the main pushers for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer Cummings. There were others like that, he was nominating half a dozen a day for a while, and nearly got lynched. But all that is drifting off the topic of this AfD, of course. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO. James Luftan contribs 23:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This user is probably a sockpuppet; see [1]. —Centrx→talk • 02:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Now that's an unreliable source. Epbr123 11:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Centrx, would you please enlighten me as to why you think I am a sockpuppet. James Luftan contribs 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:PORNBIO Corpx 04:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. By WP:PORNBIO: (1) "Performer has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed..." FAME is listed. (3) "Performer has been prolific or innovative within a specific genre niche." Review of 3rd party references seems to qualify her for the big breast division. That said, the article could stand to emphasize that more. --Moonriddengirl 16:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:PORNBIO, for the reasons stated by Moonriddengirl. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:58, 6 August 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.