Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Careena Collins

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP The Land 12:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Careena Collins

More porncruft. Actress has no claims to notability other than having done porn. Website doesn't exist. Please note that the Google test is of highly limited use in establishing notability for pornographic actors due to linkspamming. Vizjim 00:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom Porncruft --JAranda | yeah 00:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability established by IMDB (60 films). We would keep an actress who had been in 60 non-porn films; and even applying a test of a 5-1 or even 10-1 ratio, she would qualify. I'd say she fell on the "porn star" side of the "porn star"/"porn performer" line. --MCB 01:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per MCB, notable pornstar. — Phil Welch 01:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not even "into" the stuff and I recognize the name. Notable within the genre. 23skidoo 02:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Porncruft??? So now we're removing articles because they've only done porn? That's completely out of the spirt of Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes 03:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Only if we remove them (which is a matter for votes, not your humble nominator, to decide!) The idea behind the nomination is that, to judge by the article, this person may have done a fair few films but has not established any kind of notability within the field. I'm not suggesting that porn-only actors should be banned, merely that the same criteria should be applied to them as anyone else. Vizjim 09:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• keep please erasing this is not in the spirit of wikipedia Yuckfoo 05:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a noteable porn star. I'm not sure why people even keep nominating these. Even the questionable ones get kept and she is far better known that most. --Apyule 07:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep so why aren't articles about B-movie actors and actresses being similarly nominated for deletion? "Notability" is a very difficult thing to quantify. -EdgarAllanToe 10:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Because originally I stumbled into this area following the controversies on the Jordan Capri and Tawnee Stone articles: I'm now looking through the porn starlets' listings to ensure that the same kind of abuse is deleted from other such articles. A couple of the articles I see don't seem to establish any reason for such a person to be in an encyclopedia: this seemed to be one of them. Judging by the responses this nomination is getting, I got it wrong on this occasion. Vizjim 10:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand, Capri and Stone are isolated cases... for most porn stars, their birth names (or their alleged birth names) are nearly impossible to withhold and I don't think most care once the information is out. I'm guessing that Capri and Stone made such a stink (if they even did) because they are very young and hope to completely bury the fact that they were in porn after amassing a few million dollars. -EdgarAllanToe 10:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now that I've looked at the articles you mentioned, I agree with those decisions. They were written with an antagonistic tone ("despite being billed as a teen sensation", etc.) and should at a bare minimum be rewritten to fall more in line with the "typical" porn star page. -EdgarAllanToe 10:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this information is of no value. CalJW 16:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No value is rather subjective, so how can it be used as a reason for deletion? The question is more about is the topic encylopedic. Is the claim that articles about actresses are not encylopedic? If I feel that articles on road markings are of no value does that mean all of those articles should be deleted? Vegaswikian 05:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable pornographic entertainer in accordance with WP:BIO. Hall Monitor 17:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm completely resigned to this being kept. Nonetheless, and purely out of interest, I'd like to ask which of the WP:BIO elements you meant? I quote: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: a) Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers b) A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following c)An independent biography d) Name recognition e) Commercial endorsements". Cheers Vizjim 22:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Marcus22 19:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am a firm believer that if you can learn something new, doesn't matter if it's about an event, a book, or a porn star, you should be able to learn it. i never heard of her before but now i have so i learned something new :-) KnowledgeOfSelf 23:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep probably notable. Klonimus 04:24, 4 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.