Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leah Jaye

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 Not sourced - gaining fame ≠ notable Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leah Jaye

Leah Jaye (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nothing to suggest that this porn actress is notable or passes WP:BIO, lacks reliable sources or any independent coverage that I can see. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: I don't consider this person to be notable, and I don't believe that Wikipedia does either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep and strong keep for everything else that is not either spam or a fake entry. Why do you want to delete this entry? What do you gain from that? This article does not hurt you, or does it? I see a point in deleting spam and fake storys. The reason why I reached this page is because I looked up 'Leah Jaye' at wikipedia, so it serves a purpose for me (A stub is better than nothing), needless to say that I considere it notable. To put it the other way around: People who do not consider it notable do not look it up in the first place (and so they do not read it, and so they do not consider it non-notable). Think about what the actual strength of Wikipedia is. Why is Wikipedia not just another 'Encyclopædia Britannica' wanabee? Isn't it Inclusionism that makes Wikipedia superior? Is it?! --84.57.83.188 (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on some of Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines, such as WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:RS, then you might understand why this is probably going to be deleted.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:42, 28 November 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.